<p>I am one of those parents who has to pay the full UC tuition bill. I expect that tuition will go up every year, as it does at almost every school in the country, public and private. An 8% increase ($822) to about $11,000 is still less than what a 3-4% increase will be at USC, Duke, Stanford, etc, where tuition will probably reach $40,000 this year. I am still going to be able to give my daughter an excellent undergraduate education and college experience without any loans. I am not complaining.</p>
<p>I was going to put in a donation to our UC school as I do every year for all of my kids’ schools, private or public.</p>
<p>Do not feel like doing it now. The 8% increase will be my ‘donation’ which I wish that I can get a tax write-off…</p>
<p>All the kids I know at private schools, their tuition goes up ~4-6% every year too. In absolute dollars, 4-6% of ~$40,000 is still a lot more than 8% of ~10,000. Unless a student can get good financial aid or good merit aid, UCs are still the best deal for many students.</p>
<p>An 8% increase of $10K is $800, while 4% of $40,000 is $1,600 and 6% is $2,400. An +8% sounds awful given our COL increases, but it’s way overdue.</p>
<p>
Well, of course it is. These are state-supported institutions. Tuition was never supposed to cover operational costs.</p>
<p>I just learned that a single independent student (no spouse/no children) who earns $69k per year can get free tuition at a UC…and the threshold will soon go up to $80k.</p>
<p>So, a single independent student who earns $79k per year (and could have lots of savings) will get free tuition…while a family who earns - say $90k - will not.</p>
<p>How many single independent students are earning $70k/yr?</p>
<p>How qualifies a student to be single independent?</p>
<p>
On FAFSA, just be unmarried and age 24 by Dec 31 of the award year.
You can be younger and still be considered “independent” if you’re a grad student or veteran. Seems there’s also a provision for orphans, but I don’t know the details.</p>
<p>*How many single independent students are earning $70k/yr? *</p>
<p>Probably not many, but that’s not the point. The fact that it’s possible…either by owning some business or by some other means…makes it ridiculous. </p>
<p>And, the fact that such a person doesn’t have to be earning that much…he could be earning $40k (which is a good amount if all you’re supporting is yourself), and still get free tuition.</p>
<p>When I was in college (at UCI), there was a family of brothers that owned 2 or 3 pizza joints. They (the students) each had a good income as the owners for college students, but would probably have come under this threshold. Would it have been right for them to get free tuition? No.</p>
<p>There’s no reason why there can’t be some kind of formula depending on how many are in your household. A household of 1 is not the same as a household of more.</p>
<p>limabeans:
“my mom lived in CA for 35 years. Her property taxes were obscenely low because the house didn’t “turn over”; they lived in the same house all that time. What a crazy system of how to determine property taxes: bump it up whenever a house is sold, otherwise leave it alone. Eh??? No wonder why they are about to have a financial collapse.”</p>
<p>Property taxes are increased every year but should not go up on the basis of a superficial value of a property sold down the lane. Just because some one found a stupid enough person to pay twice or thrice the property value your mom paid won’t make the property worth that much.</p>
<p>Unless the property is not sold it shouldn’t be assessed on the basis of some other property because there are no dearth of fools in CA who have bought property @ 0 down, with negative amortization at a price no sensible person would have bought or bank in the right sense won’t have extended credit.</p>
<p>Your mom should not be paying taxes based on some foolish people actions.</p>
<p>Instead students or parent should pay full cost of tuition to attend UCs instead of subsidized tuition forcing your mom to pay for it.</p>
<p>The well off and the poor will be able to afford to send their children to a UC. It’s the middle class that will be priced out.</p>
<p>The problem is that the state budget is in the red due to outrageous pension promises that cannot be met. Many state employees can retire at 50 making 90% of their last year’s wages which they jack up by doing massive overtime in that last year. That, along with Cadillac medical benefits, is what is causing the state’s budget crisis.</p>
<p>Limabeans: *“my mom lived in CA for 35 years. Her property taxes were obscenely low because the house didn’t “turn over”; they lived in the same house all that time. What a crazy system of how to determine property taxes: bump it up whenever a house is sold, otherwise leave it alone. Eh??? No wonder why they are about to have a financial collapse.”</p>
<p>POIH
Property taxes are increased every year but should not go up on the basis of a superficial value of a property sold down the lane. Just because some one found a stupid enough person to pay twice or thrice the property value your mom paid won’t make the property worth that much.</p>
<p>Unless the property is not sold it shouldn’t be assessed on the basis of some other property because there are no dearth of fools in CA who have bought property @ 0 down, with negative amortization at a price no sensible person would have bought or bank in the right sense won’t have extended credit.</p>
<p>Your mom should not be paying taxes based on some foolish people actions.*</p>
<p>I completely agree with POIH. I grew up in Calif and remember when Prop 13 passed. It passed because people were getting to the point that they couldn’t afford their ever-rising property taxes because on paper their homes were worth more. My parents saw their property taxes rise from about $350 a year (in the mid 60s) to $1400 a year (by early 70s). That doesn’t sound like much in 2010, but back then my dad was only earning about $12k per year. So, paying over 10% of the family’s gross income to property taxes was going to mean losing the house. </p>
<p>Many people were in my parents’ situation. Incomes were lowish and property taxes were rising faster than they could manage. People bought their homes based on what they believed they could afford - with fixed rate mortgages. Having property taxes rising out of control would be like having an adjustable mortgage that had no limits on it.</p>
<p>^^^
Do CA property taxes go into the state’s general fund??</p>
<p>Public Policy Institute of California Poll: [Funding</a> for higher education is inadequate](<a href=“http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=za9us0kf9cxiw4]Funding”>http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=za9us0kf9cxiw4)</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>I think so. A portion stays locally, but I think the majority goes to Sacramento. But, I think either half or more of the state’s budget goes to K-12 funding.</p>
<p>Hmm. As a general rule, I believe property taxes are local governments’ purview. I didn’t think CA property taxes funded UC, but I’m not a CA resident.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am. They do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s one of the causes, but cannot nearly be characterized as “the” problem. The legislators have never met a “cause,” new or old, essential or optional, temporary or permanent, that they do not feel compelled to fund. The CA Senate and Assembly must be responsible for every social need within the borders of CA. That, in addition to pensions and entrenched special interests, has been gradually but dangerously bankrupting the State over a period of time, despite many warning signs – I will add.</p>
<p>*I didn’t think CA property taxes funded UC, but I’m not a CA resident.</p>
<p>I am. They do. *</p>
<p>LOL…succinct and to the point. As a former Calif resident, I also know that most of prop taxes go to Sacramento. That was to avoid wealthier areas from having too much to spend on their schools.</p>