[Mulderator]

California's Democratic controlled government has decided to raise tuition for its students by 32%. This to make up for the enormous pension benefits that are being paid to government workers. What happens here in California is that government Unions donate about 99% to Democrats, who then pay off the unions by doubling the size of goverment workers and providing 90% pension benefits so they can retire at age 50!!!!

I had some other threads on this and said that what would happen is that other valuable services would be cut because Democrats are too afraid to take on the government unions who are stealing from the middle class taxpayer and the poor. Everyone of you Moore-Ons that vote for a Democrat need to know that you are voting to continue the most corrupt system in existence today--the government unions use taxpayer money to get Democrats elected and to control the press and then the Democrats pay off the unions by raising taxes to pay for enormous union benefits. We now retire most government employees in California as Millionairres!!!

Consider the article below that was in the LA Times--certainly no conservative source (in fact its a liberal rag). I am shocked that this article actually got published. Must be someone at the times with a conscience. The author compares California (run by Democrats) to Texas (run by Republicans) and Texas with its low taxes is providing equal or better services to its people while California with its high taxes is providing the benefits to lawmakers and government unions while the people in the state suffer. Again--it boggles the mind why anyone would ever vote for a Democrat knowing this kind of crap is going on (unless of course you are one of the privileged few getting a windfall from the corruption):

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...0,825554.story

The Golden State isn't worth it. Our high-benefit/high-tax model no longer works, especially compared with low-tax states like Texas.

By William Voegeli
November 1, 2009

In America's federal system, some states, such as California, offer residents a "package deal" that bundles numerous and ambitious public benefits with the high taxes needed to pay for them. Other states, such as Texas, offer packages combining modest benefits and low taxes. These alternatives, of course, define the basic argument between liberals and conservatives over what it means to get the size and scope of government right.

It's not surprising, then, that there's an intense debate over which model is more admirable and sustainable. What is surprising is the growing evidence that the low-benefit/low-tax package not only succeeds on its own terms but also according to the criteria used to defend its opposite. In other words, the superior public goods that supposedly justify the high taxes just aren't being delivered.

California and Texas are not perfect representatives of the alternative deals, but they come close. Overall, the Census Bureau's latest data show that state and local government expenditures for all purposes in 2005-06 were 46.8% higher in California than in Texas: $10,070 per person compared with $6,858. Only three states and the District of Columbia saw higher per capita government outlays than California, while those expenditures in Texas were lower than in all but seven states. California ranked 10th in overall taxes levied by state and local governments, on a per capita basis, while Texas, one of only seven states with no individual income tax, was 38th.

One way to assess how Americans feel about the different tax and benefit packages the states offer is by examining internal U.S. migration patterns. Between April 1, 2000, and June 30, 2007, an average of 3,247 more people moved out of California than into it every week, according to the Census Bureau. Over the same period, Texas had a net weekly population increase of 1,544 as a result of people moving in from other states. During these years, more generally, 16 of the 17 states with the lowest tax levels had positive "net internal migration," in the Census Bureau's language, while 14 of the 17 states with the highest taxes had negative net internal migration.

These folks pulling up stakes and driving U-Haul trucks across state lines understand a reality the defenders of the high-benefit/high-tax model must confront: All things being equal, everyone would rather pay low taxes than high ones. The high-benefit/high-tax model can work only if things are demonstrably not equal -- if the public goods purchased by the high taxes far surpass the quality, quantity and impact of those available to people who live in states with low taxes.

Today's public benefits fail that test, as urban scholar Joel Kotkin of NewGeography.com and Chapman University told the Los Angeles Times in March: "Twenty years ago, you could go to Texas, where they had very low taxes, and you would see the difference between there and California. Today, you go to Texas, the roads are no worse, the public schools are not great but are better than or equal to ours, and their universities are good. The bargain between California's government and the middle class is constantly being renegotiated to the disadvantage of the middle class."

These judgments are not based on drive-by sociology. According to a report issued earlier this year by the consulting firm McKinsey & Co., Texas students "are, on average, one to two years of learning ahead of California students of the same age," even though per-pupil expenditures on public school students are 12% higher in California. The details of the Census Bureau data show that Texas not only spends its citizens' dollars more effectively than California but emphasizes priorities that are more broadly beneficial. Per capita spending on transportation was 5.9% lower in California, and highway expenditures in particular were 9.5% lower, a discovery both plausible and infuriating to any Los Angeles commuter losing the will to live while sitting in yet another freeway traffic jam.

In what respects, then, does California "excel"? California's state and local government employees were the best compensated in America, according to the Census Bureau data for 2006. And the latest posting on the website of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility shows 9,223 former civil servants and educators receiving pensions worth more than $100,000 a year from California's public retirement funds. The "dues" paid by taxpayers in order to belong to Club California purchase benefits that, increasingly, are enjoyed by the staff instead of the members.

None of this happens by accident. California's interlocking directorate of government employee unions, issue activists, careerists and campaign contributors has become increasingly aggressive and adept at using rhetoric extolling public benefits for all to deliver targeted advantages to itself. As a result, the political reality of the high-benefit/high-tax model is that its public goods are, increasingly, neither public nor good. Instead, the beneficiaries are the providers of the public services, and certain favored or connected constituencies, rather than the general population.

The recession will eventually end, and California's finances will get better. Given its powerful systemic bias against efficient and effective public services, however, the question is whether the state will ever get well. California's public sector has pinned its hopes for avoiding fundamental reform on increased federal aid to replace dollars the state's fed-up taxpayers refuse to surrender. In other words, residents in the other 49 states -- the new 49ers? -- would enjoy the privilege of paying California's taxes. Their one consolation will be not having to endure its lousy public services.

If, on the other hand, America's taxpayers (and China's bond buyers) succumb to bailout fatigue, California may reach the point at which, after every alternative has been exhausted, it is forced to try governing itself competently. You wouldn't know it from putting up with California's transportation and educational systems, but there actually is a principled, plausible argument to be made for the high-benefit/high-tax model. For the sake of both California and their own political ideals, its advocates ought to be leading the charge against every excess and inefficiency that deprives taxpayers of good value for their dollars. That won't happen until they stand up to their coalition partners by breaking their Faustian political bargain with California's self-serving governmental-industrial complex.

William Voegeli is a contributing editor of the Claremont Review of Books. This article is adapted from the autumn 2009 issue of City Journal.

Interestingly, it should be you liberals who are most enraged by this because the high taxes being collected here are not going to things like education and to help the poor, it is going to further a system of corruption between Democrats and Unions so pervasive that the government unions refuse to make any concessions!

I've said all along that Democrats cannot govern efficiently because of their close ties to union (specifically government unions). What happens is taxes keep being raised, government grows bigger, salaries and benefits for government workers grow larger while middle class taxpayers income shrinks--businesses begin an exodus from the state and you are left with the fiscal disaster as we have here in California.

Its time for you liberals to face facts--Democrats can't govern effectively--the evidence of it is clear when you compare and contrast a state like California with a state like Texas--one run into the ground by Democrats while the other run by Republicans is enjoying huge economic growth (despite a huge problem with illegal immigration).

The sad thing is this kind of information will fall on deaf liberal ears--in their minds they believe higher taxes means more benefits for the poor and underprivileged when in essence what it means is less benefits!!!

Show me a state where Republicans are screwing over the public by providing huge benefits to the government and the workers??? What happens is they rightfully favor free enterprise and less government so that everyone (not just the government worker) can enjoy more of fruits of their labor.

[ekim68]

Ok, I'm gonna face facts and Democrats can't govern effectively, so let's hand this recession over to the Republicans... (I posted this earlier so it doesn't fall on this liberal's ears. And, I don't believe that higher taxes means more benefits for the poor and underprivileged when in essence what it means is less benefits..)

The problem is, IMO, governments haven't kept up with population growth and they grasp at straws to try to accommodate it.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by ekim68

The problem is, IMO, governments haven't kept up with population growth and they grasp at straws to try to accommodate it.

The size of government doubled in 10 years in California--IT DOUBLED!!! Most of that growth occurred while Grey Davis was governor and the state was completely run by Democrats. During Pete Wilson's time as governor the size of government stayed relatively constant. And he would have never allowed 90% pension benefits.

Look, this is not an issue anymore of right vs. left or conservative v. liberal--this is a matter of putting people in office who can run a state efficiently--Democrats can't do it unless we outlaw political contributions by government unions. That's the most ridiculous system ever devised--its the proverbial fox guarding the hen house. Unions get Democrats elected--Democrats pay unions off with doubling the size of government (adding many more union workers) and providing pension benefits that are so unbelievably generous that most people don't believe it when you tell them (and think about the fact that most people don't even know about it!). We have workers retiring at age 50 and then starting a second government job, collecting a 90% pension while being paid 100% of a second salary and then earning a second pension!!!! I mean its a **&&**P)) crime that this is going on--its killed our economy, our taxes are outrageous, critical services we need are being cut, tuition is being raised by a third and yet people keep electing Democrats. Its unbelievable--its like an episode of the Twilight zone. People talk about corporate corruption--what a joke--nothing Bernie Madoff or Enron or any other corporate crook ever did even comes close to the fraud that's been pulled on California by the Democrats and the government unions--its destroyed the economy, crippled the state, its disgusting and you STILL hear very little about it from the mainstream media. You hear nothing about the fact the entire fiscal crisis can be laid at the feet of the government unions and what they have stolen from the people of California.

[Mulderator]

Here are some excerpts from "Tarnished State" by VICTOR DAVIS HANSON from National Review (received it in an e-mail so I don't have a link):

.....

How, then, has everything gone so wrong so fast?

Just three months after California raised taxes and cut services in an attempt to bridge a $24 billion budget shortfall, it is already broke. Once again it is begging and borrowing, issuing billions of dollars in bonds to raise cash — most of them rated barely above junk status.

We Californians pay among the highest income and sales taxes in the nation — the former exceeding 10 percent in the top brackets, and the latter 9 percent when local sales taxes are included. But the more taxes rise, the more budget revenues fall short of outlays, despite recent spending cuts to stave off bankruptcy.

. . . .

This litany of ongoing crises could be expanded, but one gets the dismal picture well enough.

What caused all this?

Dissecting the California mess has become a national obsession. While the 2008 financial panic and the present recession have made things worse everywhere, California is a special case, its endemic problems going beyond those of the nation at large.

. . . .

Yet if the expenditures of the last two decades had merely risen commensurate with population growth — factoring in rises in the cost of living — then even in these tough times, Californians would enjoy a $15 billion surplus. After adjustments for inflation, the state currently spends almost 20 percent more per capita than it did just eight years ago. In less than two decades, California’s tax revenues have increased by 167 percent, but its voracious public spending has increased by 189 percent.

More than half of all public employees — from teachers and professors to nurses and secretaries — are unionized. The state’s workers are among the highest-paid in the nation. During San Francisco’s recent financial meltdown, it was reported that one city nurse made $350,000 per year. A municipal park ranger earned, with overtime, $188,000. With overtime, prison guards can make $100,000 a year. Sweetheart pension deals allow some California law-enforcement officers and firefighters to retire in their early fifties with 90 percent compensation. Generous health-care expenditures for retired public employees are increasing at an average annual rate of 12 percent, while last year the state’s two largest pension funds each lost a third of their value.

Public-employee unions are among the largest contributors to state politicians. (all of which goes to Democrats!!!! ) Despite California’s bankruptcy, unions fight, in often melodramatic fashion, any concession proposed by the governor to bridge the budget shortfall. In reaction to recent efforts to eliminate the Columbus Day state holiday, Angela Morales, job steward for Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1000, boasted that the holiday “has become the hill that our union is willing to die on.”

. . . .
Idealistic federal and state judges, among the nation’s most liberal, reflect the culture in which they live. Often they rule that the state must expand regulation, increase entitlements, or offer restitution, without any guidance on how to pay for the associated expenses. Teachers’ unions have lobbied for higher pay, less accountability, and a curriculum stressing self-esteem — at precisely the time when massive immigration, both legal and illegal, has brought in millions of students without English fluency and in dire need of traditional education, causing white flight from failing metropolitan school districts in Fresno, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and San Jose.

Environmentalists have curtailed public use of thousands of acres of state land and restricted private land-use options — even as the population has skyrocketed. The result is millions of acres of untouched coast and mountains, a pristine north, and congested, high-priced living around Los Angeles and San Francisco. To drive along the Bay Area’s northern corridor, around Interstate 280, is to see thousands of acres of open spaces and aging upscale communities of tiny but now million-dollar-plus homes. A sort of “I got mine” attitude leads entrenched coastal communities to shun the very conditions that once allowed their residents a chance at affordable housing.

Conservatives elsewhere point to California, with all its failures, as the proverbial canary in the coal mine — a warning about Obama’s vision of an America of higher taxes, increased regulation, greater redistribution of property, more unionized employees, lax borders, environmental radicalism, and politicized education.

. . . .

University of California officials talk grandly of the need for more diversity on their campuses, mostly in lamentation that blacks and Hispanics are “underrepresented” at the flagship, but not racially diverse, campus at Berkeley. Rarely do they mention that whites are underrepresented there as well. To set policy in accordance with their utopian world of proportional admissions, they would have to deny entrance to thousands of Asian students — “remedying” the discrepancy between a roughly 10 percent Asian presence in the general population and a nearly 50 percent Asian enrollment at Berkeley.

The truth is that there are now three Californias, with two of them in alliance against the third. The dependent class — those who pass through the criminal-justice system, those who are residing in the state illegally, and those who are poor or on public assistance — can count on the big-government coalition of affluent journalists, politicians, academics, lawyers, jurists, and state employees to lobby for more entitlements and more public services. (i.e. liberals!!! )

Mr. Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.

[Mulderator]

There is really no more debate here. Democrats in California have screwed over the working class and the poor and they are getting away with it because we have a such a stupid populace that believes every lying commercial by unions asking for more money for teachers and education and firefighters and on and on. Union leaders are no better than mafia thugs--in fact even mafia thugs have more decency--these Union people steal from every single working class American and its time people started recognizing it. And they are using the very money they are stealing to get more Democrats elected so they can steal even more taxpayer money!

[Mulderator]

As this article points out--all we need to do is reform the government pensions to give them the same as the private sector and California would have no budget deficit

http://www.ecoworld.com/government/c...s-deficit.html

For 2008, California’s state government needs something like $14 billion more than they think they’re going to collect. It is absurd to cut services. It is absurd to lay off workers. And it is especially absurd to raise taxes. All we have to do is end the injustice of “two Californias,” where public employees have retirement benefits far in excess of what private sector taxpayers – whose taxes fund those pensions – can ever hope to receive.

As we believe we demonstrate in the online interactive spreadsheet “Pension Calculations,” if all public employees were given social security and medicare in their 60s, instead of pension benefits far more generous that begin in their 50s, California would have NO budget deficit. This reform would also encourage more crossover between the public and private sector, since public sector employees would no longer be slaves to their pensions. And by putting all workers in the same boat, much needed reforms to social security and medicare would be more likely, since public sector employees would be far less likely to be indifferent to the challenges the rest of us face in our retirements.

The analysis we’ve presented on the interactive spreadsheet will allow any viewer to input their own assumptions. We think the default input assumptions, which are highlighted in yellow, are extremely conservative. There are two columns, which presumably represent two organizations, one in the private sector (left), and one in the public sector (right). Here are the assumptions – and you can enter any you like:

Age entering workforce: 20 for both
Average salary per year: Private – $30K, Public – $35K
Age at retirement: Private – 65, Public – 60
Life expectancy: 80 for both
Retirement payment per month: Private – $1K, Public – $2K
Size of workforce (incl. city & county): 3.0 million for both

Using the calculator, staying in constant dollars throughout, the cost per year to fund retirement benefits for the public entity is $36 billion per year, compared to $12 billion per year for the private entity. We would submit that every assumption in this calculation, were it to be a more accurate reflection of reality, would inflate the differential referenced here. Moreover nothing in this model calculates the staggering differential between the public and private worker when considering the costs of the generous vacation, personal, “9-80,” overtime, “comp.,” sick, and sabbatical time granted public employees, nor the cost of hiring and promoting according to quotas, regulations, incentives, and other criteria that has nothing to do with merit and competance. Bottom line: If public employees got the same deal that private employees get, on average, the state of California would save $24 billion per year – and we think that number is grossly understated.

The astute critic may counter that using constant dollars is a radically reductive assumption, rendering these calculations meaningless. We disagree. Of course the time value of money, inflation, and the earnings potential of funds is relevant, but it should normalize since both pools of workers exist in the same society, the same place and time. If they don’t normalize, they should. And if they are all applied, the result will probably not change much. Perhaps we’ll test our new online spreadsheet converter program, and post some of our more sophisticated models. And consider this – California’s state retirement systems are making assumptions regarding the real return on their funds that are based on an unprecedented boom in the value of global markets – and this may or may not be a sustained long boom. And if it is, all workers should all share in it.

This is the ideal that unions should hold most dear. All worker’s rights matter. Every Californian’s health and retirement security should matter – and the first step is to give every Californian the same set of challenges. California can solve their budget deficit overnight – even modest pension benefit reductions would free up $10+ billion per year in much needed funds. As Californians grapple with their huge 2008 budget deficit, why isn’t there even one word being spoken in the press about reforming the financially unsustainable public employee pensions? When will someone stand up for private workers? It might make us all more likely to trust our government, more likely to embrace new projects and programs. As long as taxpayers fund retirement benefits for public employees worth many times what private sector workers will receive, no agenda or cause that increases taxes or fees should have credibility.

Problem is union leaders are lying crooks--they don't care about the "worker" they only care about their own--that's why they have bankrupted California for the sake of giving people 90% pension benefits at age 50--its a crime--the people responsible for this should be prosecuted, in my opinion!

[ekim68]

So give up their State pensions in favor of Federal pensions in the form of Social Security?
Isn't that shifting one government problem to another? (BTW, don't forget about the debt laid on California by Enron, and remember what they left to their pensioners... )

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by ekim68

So give up their State pensions in favor of Federal pensions in the form of Social Security?
Isn't that shifting one government problem to another? (BTW, don't forget about the debt laid on California by Enron, and remember what they left to their pensioners... )

They are saying have California pay them the same as everyone else gets from the government--not have the federal government pay them. You and I and everyone else aside from government workers have to rely on social security and what we manage to save and put away in 401K and other investments. Government workers don't need to save mone nor do they need to worry about markets going up or down--they get their pensions even when their pension funds lose money and we pay for it!!!!

And what Enron did pales in comparison--we are talking about many billions of dollars in pension benefits--many thousands times more than what Enron entailed--Enron is like pi$$ing in the ocean compared to the mammoth pension funds--and this is happening in many other states--all you liberals out there this is your government utopia---a system where the average taxpayer is ripped off so that a select few can live like kings, which is ironic because all you liberals think that government is the answer to taking from the rich and giving to the poor--what a joke--what's happening is Democrats are making government employees rich while soaking the middle class and the poor.

Another from the LA Times:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug...pensions9?pg=3

New DWP pension data provide a fuller picture of the city's largest retirement packages at a time when City Hall is cutting services, the public is being hit with recession-driven tax increases to cover government budget shortfalls and rising public pension costs are under close scrutiny.

The Times previously reported that nearly 600 pensioners received $100,000 a year from the city's police, fire and general government retirement plans. The new data from the city's utility adds close to 250 names to the list, which includes retirees or, in some cases, beneficiaries.

Former DWP Assistant General Manager Frank Salas ranks second on the list, receiving about $290,000 a year.
Councilman Bernard C. Parks, a former Los Angeles police chief and head of the city's budget committee, is third.

The Times reported in May that Parks, 65, who has publicly warned about soaring payroll and pension costs, received $265,000 a year in retirement payments on top of his $178,789 council salary.

With a cost-of-living adjustment that took effect this month, Parks' pension has grown to $273,000 annually, roughly 10% more than his final pay as police chief, records show.

In addition, Parks, who is serving a second four-year council term, is participating in a civilian pension plan as a councilman, officials confirmed. That could add tens of thousands of dollars per year to his total city retirement income.

Parks' eligibility for a second pension -- and the amount -- would depend on how long he serves, his final salary and his age when he collects it, officials said.
Parks did not respond to an interview request.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by ekim68

So give up their State pensions in favor of Federal pensions in the form of Social Security?
Isn't that shifting one government problem to another? (BTW, don't forget about the debt laid on California by Enron, and remember what they left to their pensioners... )

Ekim--let me ask you because you are a fairly reasonable guy---how do you feel about government employees getting 90% pensions and retiring at age 50? And then being eligible to continue to work a full time job while collecting a full pension and earning a second pension--if they work to age 65, they will collect a 90% pension from one job and a 45% pension from their second job giving them 30 to 40% more then what they ever made working in pension benefits! And they get cost of living increases every year AND full paid healthcare for life. I mean WTF??? How in the world can anyone think that's good for anyone other than the person who is benefitting.

[Mulderator]

To bring this back to my point--the way that California is choosing to pay for all this is by cutting other services that are very important or in this case by raising student tuition by 32 percent. I always thought that subsidizing college was one of the good things that California did--I didn't mind paying more in taxes for things like "free" freeways and low costs for college and free public beaches. But now they are changing all that--but they are not lowering taxes--they are raising taxes and cutting services all so that they can government employees can retire at age 50 at 90% benefit rates--its is sickening because people don't need that kind of money to retire on--the rest of us will be retiring at far less than 90% of our working salaries and we will do fine on that. I'd much rather see 50% pensions and keep college education reasonable.

[ekim68]

You lay so much on the table Mulder. First off, Enron reneged on the pension for their workers, so that showed me that the private company couldn't fulfill their commitments and therefore couldn't be trusted above government.. Secondly, I don't believe in double-dipping...If a person retires, live with it, or do 'trade and barter' on the side, it works for me...That, BTW, lends credence to local community involvement... But, my question is; How much of the public pension is part of the on going budget problems? You state the dollars, but, what is the percentage of that compared to the running of state government, or even the upkeep of infrastructure?

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by ekim68

You lay so much on the table Mulder. First off, Enron reneged on the pension for their workers, so that showed me that the private company couldn't fulfill their commitments and therefore couldn't be trusted above government.. Secondly, I don't believe in double-dipping...If a person retires, live with it, or do 'trade and barter' on the side, it works for me...That, BTW, lends credence to local community involvement... But, my question is; How much of the public pension is part of the on going budget problems? You state the dollars, but, what is the percentage of that compared to the running of state government, or even the upkeep of infrastructure?

Ekim, if the government keeps going this way, they will default on pensions just like Enron did. Bankrupt is bankrupt. BTW, Enron was no different than most companies in that they were supposed to be required to have the "pension" money seperate and secure against a collapse of the company, but the government didn't force this issue as they did the same thing with social security. And most of the employees had nothing but Enron stock in their 401Ks, which is very stupid and anyone with any sense does not put all their eggs in one basket. Most companies don't offer "pensions" anymore, only 401Ks and that money is secure against the company failing as long as the investments in that account are valuable. Our government is broke!!! We owe more money than we can ever repay and have promised to pay 10x more than that in unfuded liabilities. This is utter madness and we are going to pay a very heavy price for the greed of the government and those that vote for more "entitlements" . You and I are not entitled to anything but an opportunity to make it with our own resources. You are not entitled to a job, a car, a house or healthcare. You are supposed to earn each of those things. We need to take care of those that absolutely can't take care of themselves, not those that won't take care of themselves.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

I always thought that subsidizing college was one of the good things that California did--I didn't mind paying more in taxes for things like "free" freeways and low costs for college and free public beaches. But now they are changing all that--but they are not lowering taxes--they are raising taxes and cutting services all so that they can government employees can retire at age 50 at 90% benefit rates--its is sickening because people don't need that kind of money to retire on--the rest of us will be retiring at far less than 90% of our working salaries and we will do fine on that. I'd much rather see 50% pensions and keep college education reasonable.

yup...and while your point is well taken (and has been -in your last three threads ), i also feel that we're getting hit with more taxes because the legislature has some bug up it's behind about WRITING legislation.....not just legislation that becomes law, but legislation that becomes programs, costing money.....it's one of the reasons i'm looking at meg whitman for governor....i like the idea of just STOPPING for a year or so and taking a look at what's on the books.

[Knotbored]

Since this thread is titled about tuition raises maybe someone can opine about what percentage of college costs should be paid by students, assuming they are the major benefactors of that education (although society in general also gets some benefit.)
Personally I am for lower subsidies for almost all government programs, including liberal arts colleges.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Knotbored

Since this thread is titled about tuition raises maybe someone can opine about what percentage of college costs should be paid by students, assuming they are the major benefactors of that education (although society in general also gets some benefit.)
Personally I am for lower subsidies for almost all government programs, including liberal arts colleges.

i don't really have a number, but i paid for part of mine, out of economic necessity, and my daughter will pay for most of hers, for the same reason......

which wasn't the plan....but that's how it's working out ...it's to her credit that she understands and is willing to bite the bullet

i feel it's important that a college kid get some sense of "earning their way through" their education....the minimum isn't as important as effort,imo.....even it is just working 10 hours a week for some pocket money.