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.'"

21 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 Tsar · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's a way to dumb down the city.

      Too late!

    2. Re:dumb idea by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Informative

      what services do they use a lot of? My local university has their own libraries, police department, and pays for the "free" municipal bus routes (all paid for by tuition and admin fees). A large chunk of my property taxes are paying for 1-12 education. how many college students also bring along their 6-18 yo kid?

      My state has two programs that limit the property taxes for people who own their primary residence, so people who buy a house and rent it out to students (or others) pay higher property taxes.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    3. 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?

    2. Re:Student effect on economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not defending higher taxes, but I want to give some context, Pittsburgh has a high percentage of it's economy that comes from non-profit entities such as universities and hospitals from which they don't collect the same amount of taxes as they would from a for profit company. This has always been a problem for Pittsburgh, even when the economy wasn't bad. And while the students do pay some local taxes (sales taxes, etc) other people who work in Pittsburgh pay those taxes, plus they also pay income taxes. So, in general, students pay less taxes per person compared to other employed people. A fairness argument is tough to gauge though. Is it fair to tax to students on tuition (money that students need to PAY compared to income that they EARN)? Is it fair to charge more to CMU students compared to Pitt students just because they pay more tuition? Are they going to take into account the level of student aid you get? Do students use up the same level of city services as other people who work in the city? They don't tend to drive much. Campuses have their own police forces. This is something that has been coming for some time. I was once audited by the City of Pittsburgh while at CMU because I received a health insurance benefit from a previous employer and they made me prove that I could legitimately file taxes as a resident of another state. They were pretty reasonable about it and didn't end up charging me anything, but I've heard a lot a similar stories. I think another part of it is that many students (particularly at CMU) are from somewhere else and the city sees them as an opportunity to tax "outsiders".

    3. Re:Student effect on economy by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're missing the point. The point is, our civilization is going to fail, and they're throwing any shit they can at the wall in the hopes that it will stick. It won't stick, civilization will fall, the schools will close and the young men and women who are attending them will have to grow up and leave the playground behind.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    4. Re:Student effect on economy by zolltron · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The city is just acting stupidly by threatening to tax the students and tuition fees. It should simply reduce police and fire services to the univ neighbourhoods and ask the univs to hire private security for protection and refuse to maintain things like synchronized traffic lights and traffic by pass and other such things.

      They do. Both CMU and Pitt have private police forces. And you don't think that things like Pitt games bring venue to the city? The city seems to think so.

      Also it should charge market rates for their sewer connections, water supplies and use of public spaces for utilities. The univs will come back begging to give up their tax exempt status and agree to pay real estate taxes like all other residents and businesses are paying. In fact if their tax exempt status is revoked, almost all the businesses and private property owners will see a big reduction in their tax bills.

      I would hope you think we should also charge churches real estate taxes. I feel pretty confident all the churches take up more real estate than the universities. I wonder what the public reaction to that would be?

      Blame the greedy CMU that charges 48000$ a year from their students,

      Greedy? CMU has a *tiny* endowment compared to their status (only 10% of their operating budget). None of student tuition goes to the endowment, its all used to operate the university. And, of course, many students seem very happy to pay it. I wish that universities didn't have to charge that much, but I think it's unfair to call CMU greedy.

      refuses to bear its fair share of the cost of providing civic services passing the burden on the shrinking tax base.

      It's not the shrinking tax base that's to blame. Its the city mismanagement of it's pension fund. "That need stems from decades of questionable management of the city's pension fund, which holds around one-third of the $899 million it should to cover future obligations."

    5. Re:Student effect on economy by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 4, Informative

      the city would be a run-down industrial dinosaur like Pittsburgh or Detroit.

      Actually, Pittsburgh has managed to revive itself very nicely in the past few years, they really managed to clean up and re-image themselves after their steel industry went kaput. It is no longer really fair to compare it to Detroit, which is a shithole now more than ever.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  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?

  4. I'm no master politician but... by PingSpike · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...wouldn't just raising the booze tax accomplish the same thing?

    1. Re:I'm no master politician but... by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Easy. Just pander to the people who a) don't drink, or b) pretend that they don't. "Sin taxes" are becoming increasingly popular among the holier-than-thou voting crowd who look at it as a way to get everyone else to pay a tax increase while they get off free because "it's bad for you! You deserve it!"

      "First they came for the smokers, and I said nothing because I was not a smoker. Then they came for the McNuggets and suddenly I cared because ZOMG MY FREEDOM!"

  5. 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.

  6. Students need to do a economic demonstration by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1. Get $2 bills and dollar coins and use them for all their purchases for two weeks.

    2. Then spend a week or two not spending a dime - ideally until they've saved the $400 tax.

    3. Publicize it. Write articles in the student paper and letters to the editor.

    4. Sit back and watch the results. Lather, rinse and repeat.

    5. Profit?

    Seriously, students need to show their economic impact on the local community. Using money not normally used will help make that point.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  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. Churches by Stiletto · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  9. How about some other ideas? by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why not a politician tax, somewhere around 1% of their annual income, for the privilege of being a politician?

    If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

    --
    Stasis is death. Embrace change.
  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. 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.