October 06, 2003

From Each According To His Ability (To Pay)

The University of California Board of Regents is proving itself once again to be a bastion of Marxism.

In their latest brilliant move, they are considering a plan under which rich kids, those defined as have familial incomes of more than $90,000, will pay up to $3,000 a year more in tuition that a kid whose family income is less than $90,000. The reasoning is pure Marxist - the rich kid is able to pay more, so they should have to.

The University of California is a state supported institution. The folks paying this surcharge have already paid taxes. Why is California going to charge one taxpayer more than another for the same basic service?

Should rich folks pay a higher sales tax? They could afford it. Should they pay more to register their car? They could afford that too. Wealthy people can afford to pay more than poor folks for everything. Is that a justification for deliberately charging them more? No.

I'm sure that somewhere, the University of California has some declaration that they don't discriminate based on, among other things, income level. Chances are, this was put in as a justification for some special tuition assistance program for "underprivileged" people. Well, it cuts both ways. If you can discriminate against poor people based on their wealth, you can't discriminate against rich people based on theirs. Fair is fair is fair.

It's truly a shame to see how bad a mess the state of California has gotten itself into. The bills for all the years of fiscal irresponsibility are now coming due.

Posted by Chris at October 6, 2003 07:18 PM | TrackBack | Linked by:
Comments

As I recall the citation:

God first make idiots.
That was just for practice.
He then made school boards.

Mark Twain

Posted by: Don at October 6, 2003 07:46 PM

As wrong as this is it is not really new just a variataion on what they do today.

The scholarship/studentloan/grant in aid programs use 'ability to pay' as a key criteria. The federal FAFSA application is pretty much a one rule fits everyone tool and the more it thinks you should (does not well match 'can' in many cases) pay the less you are elibible for.

Posted by: Steve at October 7, 2003 05:38 PM

Steve,

You're correct in the sense that it is just a variation on the current system. But I think it is the differences make all the difference in the world.

With the current system, the assumption is that everyone starts at the same tuition level and the less fortunate are given assistance. By doing it this way, as a society, we get to feel as though we are reaching out to and helping people to improve their lot in life. Yes, they pay less, but we can feel good about helping.

With the proposed system, we would charge some more than the base tuition amount. Now the system is no longer a positive, feel good system, but rather a punitive tax on success. Nobody, save the class warriors, feels better about take from some, rather than helping others.

I realize that in the end, if the proposal were to pass, we would have both the current helping system, alongside the punitive system. I have no problem with helping people, but going the other way is just too much.

The end effect is the same, but it is precisely the differences in the variation that make it so unpalatable.

Posted by: Chris at October 7, 2003 07:23 PM


Comments have been closed on this entry in an effort to conserve disk space. If you have feedback on this entry, please email me at blog - at - cbnoble.com.