Slashdot Mirror


Pittsburgh To Tax Students

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.'"

22 of 344 comments (clear)

  1. dumb idea by lpaul55 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's a way to dumb down the city.

    --
    ... now back to the bit mines.
    1. Re:dumb idea by Teancum · · Score: 4, 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.

  2. Student effect on economy by DeadPixels · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While it's true that the students don't pay regular taxes like other residents, what about the fact that they bring a huge amount of disposable income and spend it in the city? The money goes to the local businesses, who in turn pay taxes on their revenue. Seems fair enough to me.

    1. Re:Student effect on economy by the+eric+conspiracy · · 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?

  3. Wrong! by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Students bring tons of money into an area. This fool is going to drive the students to another city. Heh....I wonder if he talked it over with the Universities before he did it?

    1. Re:Wrong! by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also, many students who go to school in a city, are more likely to stay in that city to work. If you don't have any college graduates living in your city, your city will quickly devolve into an uneducated mess. I learned that playing SimCity. Surely they can figure this one out.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Wrong! by THotze · · Score: 3, 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.

  4. pay their 'fair share.' by commodore64_love · · 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.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:pay their 'fair share.' by nycguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These politicians need to dig deeper.

      They are...into your pockets.

  5. Politicians always come up with a bullshit reason by nanospook · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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. We fought the British off and then turned around and just did it to ourselves. If they are short of money, maybe they should get some higher education "smart" people from MIT to look at "innovative" ways to cut costs or do things "smarter" and "cheaper". Any corporation worth its salt has this approach and sells it to their employees as well as a corporate standard. Better faster cheaper. Instead we have the politicians (who are not living in a dingy one bedroom trying to get an education, maybe raising a kid or working 3 jobs) who keep the status quo the same year after year and show no innovation toward bettering the lives of the people. They stifle innovation and change just by their very existence.. Another example of government? The blinking yellow lights where you have to drop to 20 miles and hour during school hours. I drive a 30 minute commute and on that road, there are 3-4 areas like this. The problem though.. no kids! In the 3 years I've taken this route, I've yet to see any kids crossing the road at these locations. Yet every day, huge numbers of cars have to slow down, causing traffic congestion, wasting time, because some politician said "protect the kids, blah blah blah, do it for the kids". I'm not impressed.. we always go for bigger organizations instead of smaller ones that can do a better job in a localized area..

    --
    Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
  6. wow by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Something is really wrong when you tax a student while just having given massive tax cuts to the very rich in the last 7 years.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pittsburgh gave massive tax cuts to the "very rich" recently?

  7. Priorities by six11 · · Score: 4, 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) 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

  8. Oh the Burden of Soon to be Educated and Employed by knapper_tech · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lifeblood sucking students who contribute nothing to society and ruthlessly download music and movies must pay their toll just like all the rest of us hard working people with income. We all had spare change during school to throw at the municipal government. Why can't they?

    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!

    --
    "There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them." ~ Louis Armstrong
  9. Churches by Stiletto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yet, we're still not taxing churches...

    1. Re:Churches by Grygus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well historically pissed-off students get shot and run over by tanks. Pissed-off religious groups gruesomely kill their enemies in operations ranging from single-man strikes to multinational wars. Which group do you want to take on?

  10. The whole story... by sugapablo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is, in Pittsburgh the two major enterprises/employers are colleges and hospital systems. Both non-profit and both tax exempt. They own a tremendous amount of land (tax-free) employ the most people (tax free) and use up a tremendous amount of city services (such as police, ambulance, fire, water, sewage, etc, all tax free). The city has been trying for years to get the universities and hospitals to pay something, ANYTHING to help the city with its budget situation. In other cities where non-profits make up a large percentage of the area, the non-profits usually contribute something in terms of "voluntary payments", such as in Boston. What the mayor is doing, is trying to pressure the universities to come to the negotiating table to help support the city in its time of financial need, using other major cities with major university systems as a model. So far, the universities and hospital systems have refused. (Keep in mind, our major hospital system is UPMC (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center). Luke cares little for this tax and doesn't want it to pass. He want to use it to cause a big firestorm (which obviously it has) and force concessions. We'll see if it works. PA State Reps are already proposing laws to prevent the City of Pittsburgh from being able to tax students directly.

  11. US doens't want students by googlesmith123 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In a time such as ours. Where so many people are loosing their jobs. And most of the people who lose their jobs have no education. Why then would your want to tax people trying to get an education when you know how much more tax a person with an education is going to pay than a person without an eduction.

    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.

    --
    Say NO to unpaid Internships!
  12. I will. by NoYob · · 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.

    --
    It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
  13. Why does history have to keep repeating itself? by Degro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This country is sounding more and more like every period history class. The rich increasingly refuse to pay any taxes. In response, the government, powerless against said rich people, turn on the poor even more.

  14. Re:Students need to do a economic demonstration by magsol · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There was a similar attempt made in Pittsburgh several years ago. The student governments from all the universities in the area - UPitt, CMU, Chatham, and so on - all got together and set up a demonstration strategy that involved 1) spreading the word about the student tax by posting representatives at locations in the city frequented by students, and 2) encouraging students not to go to bars, liquor stores, or clubs.

    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.

    --
    "I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
  15. Re:A reality check.... by Fallingcow · · Score: 3, 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.