<p>It’s easy for me to see it. We have income tax rates of 0%. So you take the money that you didn’t pay on income taxes and either save for college or spend it when you get it. But at least you have the opportunity to save it.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Perhaps the state shouldn’t count on capital gains and budget without it and then
consider the CG taxes a surplus.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I think that reality in college expenses is a rude awakening unless you’ve been following it very closely many years out (not something I did and was hit with the rude awakening). Things do not seem as bad as they are in California but I get the impression that people expect really inexpensive higher education there and are unhappy when they don’t get it. In our corner of the country, people don’t expect inexpensive public higher education. Perhaps setting expectations would make people less unhappy in the long run.</p>
<p>The likely source of dysfunctional and nasty politics is that most people are facing downward economic mobility. An economy that is getting poorer pays less taxes to the government, yet has more people looking for government services. The political effects are no surprise, especially given that most people have stronger negative feelings about avoiding losses than they do positive feelings about similar magnitude gains.</p>
<p>This appears to be part of a long-term trend, somewhat due to more global competition and the resulting deflationary pressures on jobs and wages. I don’t see the trend changing absent some up-and-coming natural advantage showing up (like shale oil but that won’t benefit enough people with jobs).</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Perhaps some honesty is required as to the pressures on jobs and income and the
trend. I guess it’s easier to divide and conquer but that might not solve the long-term
problems. </p>
<p>I get a feeling of optimism in our corner of the country - is this seen in CA too?</p>
<p>Few politicians are that courageous to say the honest thing that you cannot have low taxes and high spending (which tends to be the consensus viewpoint – consider how frequently the US government budget has been in deficit compared to being in surplus) forever, especially when the economy itself is poorer than it used to be. Another example is the future of Medicare – people don’t want to face the fact that it needs some or all of the following: (a) restructuring to change incentives to favor better care, not more care; (b) higher taxes to pay for it; or (c) lower benefits.</p>
<p>Personally, I think this is awful for a community college, which should educate as many as it can, inexpensively. OTOH, not everyone needs to attend a major, research University.</p>
<p>What they should do is first penalize repeaters, especially those who late-drop for reasons other than medical. Late-dropping is a conscious decision to waste the state subsidy provided for the student to take the course.</p>
<p>Doing a late-drop for a non-medical reason should require paying the out-of-state tuition for the course, as compensation for wasting the state subsidy for the course.</p>
<p>Repeating a course, including those which were late-dropped, should require paying the out-of-state tuition for the course. Also, those pre-registering for repeated courses should only be allowed to get on the waitlist, so that all of those taking the course the first time can the chance to take it.</p>
<p>CC costs about $160 per credit in my state. It’s probably similar in MA.</p>
<p>This just adds an option for students that can pay the higher rate. It would appear that any student could take at least one of these courses with the total costs picked up by the federal tax credit.</p>
<p>“I think that reality in college expenses is a rude awakening unless you’ve been following it very closely many years out (not something I did and was hit with the rude awakening). Things do not seem as bad as they are in California but I get the impression that people expect really inexpensive higher education there and are unhappy when they don’t get it. In our corner of the country, people don’t expect inexpensive public higher education. Perhaps setting expectations would make people less unhappy in the long run.”</p>
<hr>
<p>Exactly my point about the need for parents of HS juniors to get a dose of reality about what’s coming their way. Look, to a certain extent you get what you pay for. For the family with a bright but not stellar kid stats-wise that has ‘only’ 10K/year to pay and refuses to take out loans, well, it’s community college or state school while living at home. And you go up from there. Too bad these parents & kids are going to expend a lot of energy for schools that either the student won’t be admitted to and/or the family can’t afford.</p>
<p>And…it’s bad all over, just varying degrees of the big squeeze of the middle class.</p>
<p>They need a dose of reality sooner than that so that they can at least consider saving for college.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say that it’s bad all over. I know of middle-class families (and we’re talking real middle-class, not the six-figure types) that manage it inexpensive public universities. I don’t know (personally) anyone that is having major hardships sending their kids to college in my family or at work. Some of us use public universities and some use private universities. All have saved up over time though not necessarily specifically for college.</p>
<p>I think that many do have problems but not all. The stat that 1/3rd own their home, 1/3rd have mortgages and 1/3rd rent indicates that there are a lot of families with finances that are better than one would think in a doom and gloom economy.</p>
<p>Ucbalumnus, forcing kids to pay higher tuition for repeating or dropping courses is an invitation for abuse… I’ve already explained my theory of ‘profit center’ departments at Cajun State (departments with spectacular failure/drop/repeat rates largely for the purpose of department-level enrollment increases and department funding).</p>
<p>The drop issue is, once again, a byproduct of bad advising, significant variation in faculty and grading styles, and so on as much as it is students slacking off. I remember my roomie at Cajun State taking (in a 12 week summer) Calc II, Phys I, Chem I. GPA, not surprising, .000 (the COBOL program did not print the first zero :)). Even someone with 24000 SAT, let alone 2400, could not pass 3 classes like these in a summer… Yet he was allowed to register (OOS) and fail all 3 classes despite less than stellar GPA to begin with.</p>
<p>This is ignorant right-wing nonsense. Unless you live in a state with no sales, excise or property taxes, everyone pays taxes, regardless of income. If you rent, you’re indirectly paying property taxes through your landlord. If you eat, drink and be merry, you pay sales and excise taxes. If you drive a car, you pay gasoline taxes, road tolls, etc.</p>
<p>I just happen to live in a state without sales and income taxes. We do have property
taxes. Those on Section 8 housing though may have part or all (the latter is more likely) of their property taxes paid for though. There is also non-profit housing which isn’t subject to property taxes. NH is one of those rare places where you really can pay next to nothing in taxes.</p>
<p>The system is already being abused by the students who drop the courses late enough that no other student can take their place (wasting their space in the course). Meanwhile, students trying to take the course the first time are delayed in taking the course because it is full with huge wait lists, including with repeaters. There is no incentive to intentionally fail students to increase department funding that is not going to come.</p>
<p>I am interested to find out more about your state arrangement and your thoughts how on how it affects K12 and higher education. What about libraries, parks and recreation?</p>
<p>Can you also reveal some examples of property taxes vs. home values?</p>
<p>fwiw: according to the Tax Foundation, New Hampshire is 44th in state/local taxes paid by its residents; that ranking includes taxes paid to other states (Ma?).</p>
<p>I’m completely in favor of lower in-state tuition rates, but in-state students and their parents should not expect, or get, a steeper discount than the state legislature is willing to pay for in current appropriations. Too many people have unrealistic expectations about this. The state’s contribution is only a fraction of the cost of providing undergraduate education; the rest comes from tuition, endowment payout (if any), and such other sources as the school can cobble together. And when the state cuts its share, tuition revenue has to go up. There are only a few ways to do that: substitute more high-tuition OOS students for low-tuition in-state students; raise tuition; admit more full-pays at the expense of students with financial need; or add more students. Many in-state parents scream bloody murder about the first 3 approaches. The fourth approach dilutes the quality of the product, and beyond a certain point may prove self-defeating even as a revenue measure because more students require more facilities, more faculty, and on and on. (It reminds me of the old joke about the businessman who figures out that he’s losing money on every unit he produces, but he decides to increase production because “We’ll make up for it in volume.”)</p>
<p>A lot of people are very unrealistic about this, and think that because they’re currently paying taxes, some tiny fraction of which goes to the school, representing a small fraction of the school’s budget, that entitles them to a huge tuition discount. Baloney. The residents of the state should get what the state is willing to pay for, no more and no less. And I don’t buy the argument that says, “Well, we paid taxes all these years; we built it, it’s ours, so even if very little of our tax money is going there now, the university owes us big-time.” Nonsense. Your tax dollars in the past went to pay for past generations of your state’s residents to get bigger tuition discounts, because tax dollars going to public higher education represented both a bigger fractional share of your tax dollar and a bigger fractional share of the university’s operating revenue. Shrink the contribution, and it only makes sense for the university to shrink the discount.</p>
<p>Yes, it’s true that some portion of your past tax dollars went into paying off the bonds on capital projects that now represent the university’s physical facilities. And that makes it cheaper for the university to now provide the educational services it offers. But the value of those assets is already reflected in the university’s current costs, which are far lower than if it had to go out and re-create all those facilities from scratch. So that value is already reflected in today’s tuition rates; you don’t get to double-count it by insisting on an additional discount, beyond what current tax dollars are paying for.</p>