Blanket tax system unfairly conducted

By Kern Vijayvargiya     3/12/09 7:00pm

Last month was a bad time to be a blanket tax. In the Student Association general election, every proposed blanket tax increase failed. In fact, the only amendment that did pass was the removal of University Blue's tax.It is conceivable that the failure of the tax increases resulted from a faltering economy, leading students to be more frugal with their fees. But I believe that this trend also indicates a general shift away from the elective blanket tax here at Rice.

The problems with the elective blanket tax are twofold. First, it has not been properly regulated by the Student Senate. Second, the tax is inherently regressive, without consideration for its economic impacts. After the rout of the blanket tax increases in the general election, it is time to institute a new system for allocating blanket funding.

At Rice, we take the blanket tax almost for granted. The existing blanket taxes cost each student $68.50 this year. But the process of holding an election to determine blanket funding is not universal across America's colleges. There is not a single school near Rice's caliber that allows students to vote on their own general taxation.

---

---

As a referendum, any blanket tax change at Rice requires a two-thirds vote of at least 20 percent of the student body in the general election. At face value, this might seem democratic. After all, students have the ability to vote these taxes down. But elections by themselves can never protect the rights of the minority, a crucial demographic. There has to be some external means of ensuring that fairness is preserved.

In Washington, D.C., federal tax policy is determined by Congress, not national referenda. No similar check exists in Rice's current structure. The only stipulation is that all tax increase requests be substantiated in front of the Student Association before entering the ballot.

But this obstacle has become a routine in the Student Senate. Not a single proposal to place a blanket tax on the ballot was rejected this year. When this process becomes meaningless, there is no check to prevent excessive and unnecessary blanket taxes.

The problem with virtually unregulated student taxation is that it does not account for those students of limited financial means. While a number of these students may have full scholarships that cover all fees, there will certainly be those who do not. For these students, any tax increase means an additional burden.

Some will argue that the current blanket tax is not a financial obstacle, as it costs less than $100. There are three primary problems with this argument. First, given current rough economic circumstances, any money saved by families can be a tremendous benefit. Second, if each of the proposed blanket tax increases had actually passed, the blanket tax would have increased by 41 percent.

But lastly, and perhaps most importantly, it is arrogant to disregard the impact of a blanket tax on others. We can never know what others are going through financially, so it makes little sense for us to assume they will accept the increases. By attempting to speak for others, elective blanket taxes represent the most regressive and inequitable expenditures we students are forced to pay.

So, how can we solve these harms? Fair blanket funding can exist in the context of university representatives who independently analyze the merits of each organization as well as the impact that each tax increase would have on the student population. It is conceivable that a group of students and members of the administration could form a group dedicated to just that end.

At the end of the day, the reformation of the blanket tax system is long overdue. Some organizations genuinely do need to receive increased funding. An independent commission would recognize that, ensuring that every dollar of a student's education is well spent.

Kern Vijayvargiya is a Jones College freshman and Thresher staff writer.

---