"The proposed fee would force undergraduate students with family incomes exceeding $90,000 to pay as much as $3,000 more to attend one of the university's nine campuses. It is expected to affect 58,194 of the university's 160,000 undergraduate students." http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030720-115936-6451r.htm
What next, show your most recent pay stub before buying a coke? "I'm sorry you made too much last week, this coke will cost you $2.00 this week."
Then here comes the "Excessive Tuition Payment" reimbursement program as part of the 2004 Tax Reform Act.
> What next, show your most recent pay stub before buying a > coke? "I'm sorry you made too much last week, this coke will > cost you $2.00 this week." Then you'd send a poorer friend to buy the Coke for you. It matters in whose name a diploma is issued. It doesn't matter in whose name a Coke is issed.
There is a precedent for this, a story that is apparently told in several cultures: A king stays at an inn in a remote part of his kingdom, and at breakfast, orders an egg. He is charged an exorbitant price. "Are eggs that scarce in this part of the country?" he exclaims in surprise. "No," he is told, "but kings are."
I'm for the proposal provided "family income exceeding $90,000" is defined as follows: 1) Adjusted gross income (as shown on U.S. Form 1040); less 2) Property taxes/mortgage interest paid on principal residence; less 3) Federal/State income taxes paid; less 4) Educational expenses paid for all dependents; less 5) Medical expenses paid; less 6) Charitable contributions: less 7) Investment expenses paid; less 8) Casualty/theft losses; equals "Family Income" I suspect, however, the foregoing would result in one hell of a lot less than 58,000 students being considered "wealthy".
