Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Pittsburgh's mayor says he'll pursue 1 percent higher-ed tax
Post Gazette: "Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl plans to propose a 1 percent college-education privilege tax to council today, in a move that's likely to set off a fight with the city's schools of higher learning."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I don't understand how the Mayor can add a one percent college-education privilege tax. While it is only one percent, that still seems somewhat ridiculous. While I understand that students should help fund the services in the city that they take advantage of, students already are paying a lot in tuition and housing. Why charge a student for the city they choose to live in? Everyone is facing hard economic times, why should student have to pay more because the city they choose to live in for their higher education needs more money from previous and continued poor budgeting?
The mayor has a terrific case here, however the students and colleges do as well. Legally, the question of non profit status has merit. But the mayor has a case, especially in Pittsburgh. With so many college students, we use a lot of the city services that residents are usually taxed for. Yet most of us do not pay the same taxes as residents (Such as an income tax). I like how a portion of this tax will go to the Carnegie Libraries. Those are resources that, honestly, we should have to pay for. So i understand where the argument is in this case, and as a student i don't want to pay this tax, but honestly i have to side with the city in deciding to impose this tax.
It personally makes me angry that i'm already paying 50,000 Dollars a year for college and now another tax is being added to that. Its not much money, but we're already paying so much to be here. I really don't think the students should be the ones taxed for us. Afterall, we already pay for those public services. CMU has to pay for us to use the libraries for free and for us to use the bus for free but i highly doubt its really free for us. I'm sure some part of our tuition helps pay for that.
Why do I need to pay more money to get a higher education? This is a great way to push people away from education. Not to mention that just because we pay a higher tuition, why should we pay more than any other student? We as students do pay taxes here, every time we buy something. Then there are the students who work in the neighborhoods and on campuses. They pay taxes on their pay checks. This seems like an unbalanced, unfair way to make money for the city. And as a resident of Pittsburgh, why are taxes potentially assessed on students going to pay for pensions? The library makes sense, but pensions? I don't think this one will fly. And if it does, it should be an equal tax for all students.
I agree with Brian, we utilize much of what normal residents use within the city. However I also agree with Katherine, as students we already pay a great deal of money to have access to these services. Directly, we don't pay for these services... indirectly we do. I understand the current economic crisis, but this certainly doesn't inspire more students or people to come here.
As a poor "starving" grad student, I can't say that this is a good idea. Allow me to briefly quote the article: "'We don't believe that [1 percent] is too burdensome on college students,' Mr. Ravenstahl said."
With students struggling as it is to make ends meet, and so many of us up to our chins in debt, adding more taxes and fees to CMU's already steep tuition is not a good plan. I understand the importance of keeping the city's library's open, but making students pay for this is absolutely unreasonable.
I too don't think this is a fair tax. Carnegie Mellon, as an institution helps to pay for a lot of the things that go on in the city. Beyond the fact that higher education institutions help bring a higher source of commerce for the city, we do pay for a lot of things.Other people mentioned the city bus fee. We pay a certain rate to allow us unlimited passes. This isn't somethign that the city is losing money on. Yes, a lot of students use buses a lot, but we pay for them, through CMU/Pitt etc and then the university pays the port authority. I am still confused on who this tax applies to, and why it wouldn't apply to Pitt. I would also like to know if boarding schools are included in those being taxed? Also, while we use the city ambulences etc, we have our own police, and library etc. We can have access to the public libary because we have mailing addresses here. People who live off campus pay taxes to the city and CMU i'm sure does included in our residential fees. So we do pay already, just not so directly.
For all of the reasons others stated, i too believe this tax is a bad idea and will prevent some people from coming/staying.
I had the same initial reaction that most students had--"I'm already paying a ridiculous amount of tuition, why should I have to pay more?"--until I got to the part about how the tax would help keep the libraries open. This is something that's pretty important to me, and I don't think I could feel completely right opposing such a cause.
Plus, as students we get a lot of discounts and free things from the city, including drastically discounted transportation, free museum access, and discounted theater tickets. Is a 1% tax for the city really so outrageous?
I understand that 1% isn't a ridiculous amount of money, but as someone who is paying 100% of their own tuition here, I am really opposed to this tax. I almost did not come to CMU because of the high cost of tuition, and can without a doubt say that any extra charge is a huge burden. I get that we do use city resources, but as many people above me have said, we ARE paying for all those things indirectly. I too think that this idea is pretty ridiculous, and I can foresee a lot of opposition to this proposal.
I don;t think that this is too bad. Sure, it means that we will all have to pay more money but it only adds up to about 500 dollars which isn't really much when we weigh the benefits of all of the things that are provided to us by the city just because of the fact that we're college students. Right now many of us who are listed as dependent don't have as large of a sum to pay for taxes when the rest of the population is paying for services that we use. By all means, this seems like what would be best for society at the time.
We are here because we either can afford it now or think that it's going to lead us to a job which will allow us to pay back all of our loans. While I'm not excited about owing even more money when this is over, even those of us who are broke today are enjoying a pretty extraordinary economic opportunity. To the extent that this (comparatively small, though still significant) cost would go to support the libraries, it increases educational opportunities for people who would otherwise have much less. In this respect, while I'm not pleased, I don't think I could reasonably oppose the tax.
While I understand the arguments for imposing a tax on students, I don’t feel it’s quite right for us to be the ones who are under the gun considering we are all paying a ton of money just to come to this institution. Along with Tiffany, one of the main reasons I considered not coming to Carnegie Mellon was the high tuition, and having a giant pile of debt when I got out of school. I realize it’s a small tax, but when people are already having to pay as much as they do to get an education, it seems ridiculous to impose more on them.
Post a Comment