Univ. of California considering surcharge for the "Rich
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2003 8:42 am
Interesting story here....typical California mindset!
I'm surprised it has taken a government school system until now to consider this. The University of California is pondering a two-tier tuition system - one price for most students and a higher price for "rich" students. The 25 member board of regents is still arguing over the word "rich," and about how much more to charge the rich students, but the idea is as old as the federal income tax system, which has always charged rich people more for government services. The UC proposal also has many, if not all, of the principles involved in the federal income tax system.
The regent who first proposed the plan thought the surcharge should be $1,000 and apply to all students whose parents earn $90,000 a year or more. That would affect a little over a third of UC's 160-thousand undergraduate students. The university study of the proposal states that a surcharge might be more "acceptable to the public" than across-the-board budget cuts because it would affect fewer people. Does that sound familiar?
But is the extra charge high enough and does it effect few enough people to be economically and politically viable? Maybe not. The university's vice president in charge of the budget has said a $3,000 surcharge might be needed to make the program worthwhile. And, the study also considers setting the cutoff at $150,000, rather than $90,000 so it affects even fewer people, in other words "more acceptable to the public."
The federal government has employed this same principle for years. It has always charged the rich more for government services, and it has always been loathe to reduce services for fear of retribution from the public. When it can't raise taxes (or raise them high enough) to pay the bill, it simply borrows the money. Here again, the UC regents are copying the federal model. First, the board raised everyone's tuition by 25%. Then it voted to borrow 40 to 50 million dollars and pay it off over five years through an increase in non-resident annual fees. The surcharge, if approved, would be on top of all of that.
The University of California is a huge, closely watched, university system. What happens there almost always, sooner or later, happens elsewhere. It is the nation's premier trendsetter in higher education. If UC adopts the two-tier tuition system, and the public doesn't complain too loudly, it will happen elsewhere - maybe where you are.
The moral of this story is that it is still morally acceptable in this country, and apparently becoming even more so, to discriminate against one distinct minority - the rich. And the beauty of this morally acceptable form of discrimination is that the smaller the minority, the more morally acceptable it is to attack them. Democrats thunder with righteous indignation that it is unconscionable to eliminate the estate tax because it "affects only two percent of the population."
Now, the UC Board of Regents is arguing about how small the group has to be to make it morally acceptable to discriminate against a minority of its students. The smaller the group, the more "acceptable to the public."
If this were any other minority, the ACLU would be rushing to the nearest courthouse, Constitution in hand, quoting the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The ACLU won't take up this cause, but someone should, and the soon-to-be-announced tuition system in California would be a great test case.
I'm surprised it has taken a government school system until now to consider this. The University of California is pondering a two-tier tuition system - one price for most students and a higher price for "rich" students. The 25 member board of regents is still arguing over the word "rich," and about how much more to charge the rich students, but the idea is as old as the federal income tax system, which has always charged rich people more for government services. The UC proposal also has many, if not all, of the principles involved in the federal income tax system.
The regent who first proposed the plan thought the surcharge should be $1,000 and apply to all students whose parents earn $90,000 a year or more. That would affect a little over a third of UC's 160-thousand undergraduate students. The university study of the proposal states that a surcharge might be more "acceptable to the public" than across-the-board budget cuts because it would affect fewer people. Does that sound familiar?
But is the extra charge high enough and does it effect few enough people to be economically and politically viable? Maybe not. The university's vice president in charge of the budget has said a $3,000 surcharge might be needed to make the program worthwhile. And, the study also considers setting the cutoff at $150,000, rather than $90,000 so it affects even fewer people, in other words "more acceptable to the public."
The federal government has employed this same principle for years. It has always charged the rich more for government services, and it has always been loathe to reduce services for fear of retribution from the public. When it can't raise taxes (or raise them high enough) to pay the bill, it simply borrows the money. Here again, the UC regents are copying the federal model. First, the board raised everyone's tuition by 25%. Then it voted to borrow 40 to 50 million dollars and pay it off over five years through an increase in non-resident annual fees. The surcharge, if approved, would be on top of all of that.
The University of California is a huge, closely watched, university system. What happens there almost always, sooner or later, happens elsewhere. It is the nation's premier trendsetter in higher education. If UC adopts the two-tier tuition system, and the public doesn't complain too loudly, it will happen elsewhere - maybe where you are.
The moral of this story is that it is still morally acceptable in this country, and apparently becoming even more so, to discriminate against one distinct minority - the rich. And the beauty of this morally acceptable form of discrimination is that the smaller the minority, the more morally acceptable it is to attack them. Democrats thunder with righteous indignation that it is unconscionable to eliminate the estate tax because it "affects only two percent of the population."
Now, the UC Board of Regents is arguing about how small the group has to be to make it morally acceptable to discriminate against a minority of its students. The smaller the group, the more "acceptable to the public."
If this were any other minority, the ACLU would be rushing to the nearest courthouse, Constitution in hand, quoting the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The ACLU won't take up this cause, but someone should, and the soon-to-be-announced tuition system in California would be a great test case.
