Bill Overview
Title: To conform Federal tax law with the Texas Constitution to allow for the continued benefit to the fullest extent possible from the financial leverage of the Permanent University Fund to the State of Texas.
Description: This bill updates the effective date of the arbitrage rules for the Permanent University Fund of the state of Texas.
Sponsors: Rep. Doggett, Lloyd [D-TX-35]
Target Audience
Population: People in Texas involved with the University of Texas and Texas A&M Systems
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The Permanent University Fund (PUF) primarily benefits Texas public universities, particularly the University of Texas and Texas A&M systems.
- Federal tax law changes affecting PUF would therefore primarily impact individuals associated with these university systems, including students, faculty, and staff.
- The bill pertains specifically to entities and individuals in Texas, as PUF funds Texas universities.
- Changes in the financial leveraging of PUF could indirectly affect educational resources, research funding, and tuition rates.
Reasoning
- The policy directly affects a specific segment of the population associated with the University of Texas and Texas A&M systems, which form a significant part of the Texas higher education sector.
- A large number of individuals might not directly feel the impact (students, staff, faculty) further removed from financial administration benefits of PUF.
- The federal tax law changes would indirectly influence tuition, research funding, and educational resources by altering financial procedures related to public university funding; thus, the impact varies according to each person’s role and proximity to these institutions.
- We include individuals who might see a slight change due to tuition or funding changes and others who remain unaffected.
- The budget and scale limits mean only a portion of the potential 5,000,000 associated individuals in Texas are directly relevant to this policy.
- Many Texas residents unaffiliated with these universities, or residing elsewhere, remain unaffected by these specific fund changes.
Simulated Interviews
Student (Austin, Texas)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the policy leads to more university funding, I might benefit from enhanced resources or scholarships.
- I hope there is some relief in tuition rates without negative cutbacks on educational quality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Professor (College Station, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Changes in funding rules could mean more grant opportunities, which are crucial for research.
- I am cautious about how administrative changes translate to practical benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Alumni Relations Officer (Dallas, Texas)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could increase the university's appeal to potential donors by showing financial improvement.
- I hope this leads to more programs that support alumni career services and networking.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Research Assistant (Houston, Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Changes to the PUF rules won't directly affect my line of work.
- I am more concerned about funding changes at Rice University.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Administrative Staff (Austin, Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is significant as it will directly influence our budgetary planning processes.
- With improved fund leveraging, there might be less pressure on cutting costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Public School Teacher (El Paso, Texas)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I suppose the policy has some broader educational impacts, but they won't affect my job directly.
- My main concerns are state funding pertaining directly to K-12 education.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
PhD Student (San Antonio, Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved research funding through efficient fund leveraging could greatly benefit my work.
- I am interested in how these rules might improve conditions for all students.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Retired (Lubbock, Texas)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I keep a lookout for policies that affect education and funding structures.
- Though retired, I am interested to see how changes support current faculty.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Technician (Austin, Texas)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Overall improved funding might enhance tech services infrastructure.
- I am cautiously optimistic about long-term implications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Hospital Administrator (Houston, Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might have larger societal benefits I am not seeing immediately.
- I remain focused on healthcare funding and policy changes there.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)
Year 2: $1500000 (Low: $1200000, High: $1800000)
Year 3: $1500000 (Low: $1200000, High: $1800000)
Year 5: $1500000 (Low: $1200000, High: $1800000)
Year 10: $1500000 (Low: $1200000, High: $1800000)
Year 100: $1500000 (Low: $1200000, High: $1800000)
Key Considerations
- The primary benefit holder is the State of Texas and its public university systems; thus, the economic effects may not be broadly distributed outside this state.
- Federal compliance changes could stress administrative capacities initially, potentially ramping up legal advisement costs temporarily.
- The policy aims to provide more financial leeway for Texas universities, which could translate into better educational resources and services.