Desperate parents are spending thousands and flocking to Southern state for the sake of their children
Thousands of parents have begun snapping up condos and houses in Texas so their children can get in-state fee rates at the state's top schools such as Rice University, University of Texas, Texas A&M, and University of Houston.
The average annual cost of college in Texas for those from another state is $24,743.
By contrast residents only pay an average of $8,195, meaning living in state offers a significant 67 percent discount.
However, the in-state discount has recently been abolished for students without legal status.
Savings over four years of college tuition, plus the added benefit of their children living in the home throughout their education can offset the costs of purchasing a home for many families.
'It's the No. 1 choice why my clients are moving here,' Houston-based real estate agent Erwin Nicholas told Realtor.com.
'Pretty much all of my clients are moving to Texas with education-based decisions in mind.'
Houston-based realtor Erwin Nicholas says most of his clients have education in mind
Families are also drawn to the Lone Star State by its low taxes and significantly lower price-per-square-foot home price tag, Nicholas explained.
A property near a renowned college can also appreciate faster than average, as well as spend less time on the market when it comes time to sell.
'They are investment vehicles as well as places for your kids to stay,' he added.
Real estate experts advise families to consider a move to another state in considerable time before their child's enrolment.
This is because many states, including Texas and Florida, require the student to have lived in-state for at least a year to acquire the tuition discount.
All 50 states offer their residents discounts on college fees, believing that residents' taxes go someway to offsetting the costs of the higher education.
It also provides an incentive to keep the best and brightest students at local institutions.
Florida provides the best in-state discount with resident students paying an average tuition of just $4,540.
For example, the University of Florida costs $28,658 for out-of-state students and $6,380 for residents - a whopping 77 percent discount.
'You want to get a realtor who is educated on these matters,' Nicholas says.
'I would encourage parents to start thinking about their kids' education not just from a scholarship standpoint and making good grades, but thinking about what states, like Texas, have in-state tuition discounts and what are the rules you should be aware of.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Meta investors, Zuckerberg to square off at $8 billion trial over alleged privacy violations
WILMINGTON, Delaware, July 14 (Reuters) - Mark Zuckerberg is expected to appear as a star witness in an unusual $8 billion trial that kicks off this week at which the Meta CEO is accused of operating Facebook as an illegal enterprise that allowed users' data to be harvested without their consent. Shareholders of Meta Platforms , the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, sued Zuckerberg and other current and former company leaders, saying they continually violated a 2012 agreement between Facebook and the Federal Trade Commission to protect users' data. The case dates back to 2018, after it emerged that data from millions of Facebook users was accessed by Cambridge Analytica, a now-defunct political consulting firm that worked for Donald Trump's successful campaign for U.S. president in 2016. Shareholders want Zuckerberg and the other defendants to reimburse the company for more than $8 billion in fines and other costs paid by Meta after the Cambridge Analytica scandal came to light, including a record $5 billion fine imposed on Facebook by the FTC in 2019 for violating the 2012 agreement. Defendants in the case include former Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, venture capitalist and board member Marc Andreessen, as well as former board members Peter Thiel, the Palantir Technologies (PLTR.O), opens new tab co-founder, and Reed Hastings, the co-founder of Netflix (NFLX.O), opens new tab. Zuckerberg and the other defendants, who declined to comment, have dismissed the allegations in court filings as "extreme claims." Meta, which is not a defendant, also declined to comment. The non-jury trial in Wilmington, Delaware, begins on Wednesday and is scheduled to last eight days. It will mostly focus on decade-old events and board meetings to determine how Facebook leaders implemented the 2012 agreement. While the trial will cover long-ago policies, it comes as privacy concerns continue to dog Meta, which is under scrutiny for its training of AI models. The company says it has invested billions of dollars since 2019 in its program to safeguard users' privacy. Jason Kint, the head of Digital Content Next, a trade group for content providers, said the case will fill in details about what the board knew - and when - regarding the data of users, who now total more than 3 billion daily across Meta's platforms. "There's an argument we can't avoid Facebook and Instagram in our lives," he said. "Can we trust Mark Zuckerberg?" Two years ago, the defendants sought to dismiss the case before trial, which the judge declined. "This is a case involving alleged wrongdoing on a truly colossal scale," said Travis Laster, the judge handling the case at the time. The trial in the Court of Chancery will be overseen by Kathaleen McCormick. Now the plaintiffs, individual investors and union pension funds including California's State Teachers' Retirement System, must prove what is often described as the most difficult claim in corporate law - showing that directors utterly failed in their duty of oversight. Legal experts said it appears to be the first trial on such a claim. Zuckerberg and Sandberg are alleged to have knowingly caused the company to violate the law. While Delaware law protects directors and officers for bad business decisions, it does not protect them from illegal ones, even if they are profitable. Defendants said in court filings that plaintiffs cannot deliver the evidence. The shareholders in pretrial court papers said they can prove that after the 2012 agreement, Facebook continued deceptive privacy practices, at the direction of Zuckerberg. The defendants said the evidence will show that the company built a team to oversee privacy and hired an outside compliance firm and that Facebook was a victim of Cambridge Analytica's "studied deceit." In addition to the central privacy claims, plaintiffs also allege that when Zuckerberg could see that the Cambridge Analytica scandal was about to break and send company stock lower, he was motivated to offload his stock and reaped at least $1 billion in profit. Defendants said evidence will show he used a stock-trading plan that can protect against insider-trading allegations. They also said the motivation was to benefit his charitable pursuits.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Why Trump's push for a 1% Fed policy rate could spell trouble for US economy
WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump says the Federal Reserve should set its benchmark interest rate at 1% to lower government borrowing costs, allowing the administration to finance the high and rising deficits expected from his spending and tax-cut bill. Trump should be careful what he wishes for. A Fed policy rate that low is not typically a sign that the U.S. is the "hottest" country in the world for investment, as Trump has said. It is usually a crisis response to an economy in serious trouble. The U.S. economy isn't in that kind of trouble now. But with near-full employment, ongoing economic growth and inflation above the U.S. central bank's 2% target, the super-low interest rates Trump seeks could easily backfire if investors in the $36 trillion Treasury market saw such a move as meaning the Fed had caved to political pressure and cut rates for the wrong reasons. Congress tasked the Fed with maintaining stable prices and full employment, not making deficit spending cheap, and slashing rates in the current environment could well reignite inflation. "I am not necessarily convinced that ... if the Fed tomorrow decided we are cutting to 1%, that this would have the traditional impact on long-term interest rates. The bond market fear would be that inflation would reignite and essentially we would have a loss of Fed independence and a de-anchoring of inflation expectations," said Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon. Though there is "scope to ease" from the current 4.25%-4.50% range, it is nothing like the magnitude of cuts Trump envisions, he said. Daco, noting the unemployment rate is 4.1%, the economy is growing around 2% and inflation is about 2.5%, said: "From a data perspective there is not anything to suggest the need for an immediate and substantial lowering." A 1% Fed policy rate has not been uncommon in the last quarter of a century, but is no sign of good times, coinciding with joblessness of 6% or higher. Former President George W. Bush governed at a time when the rate was 1%. It occurred shortly after the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 and at the end of a string of Fed rate cuts following the dot-com crash and the September 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S. Former President Barack Obama inherited a near-zero Fed policy rate when he took office in January 2009. He also inherited a global financial crisis. Trump himself got the same near-zero interest rate treatment from the Fed in the last months of his first term in the White House - when the COVID-19 pandemic shut down the economy. While hugely influential, the Fed has limited tools to influence the economy in normal times. U.S. central bankers meet typically eight times a year to set what is called the federal funds rate. Only banks borrow overnight at that rate, but it is a benchmark for other credit, influencing everything from corporate debt to home mortgages, consumer credit cards, and Treasury yields. Perhaps as importantly, it shapes expectations about where rates are headed. While closely correlated with the Fed's policy rate, those other rates are not set directly by the central bank. There's always a spread, including for what's been top of mind for Trump: the interest rate on U.S. Treasuries. Global trading across an array of markets ultimately determines those other rates. A foreign pension fund's demand for Treasuries or mortgage-backed securities, for instance, influences what Americans pay for a mortgage or the U.S. government pays to finance its operations. Supply and demand are critical. U.S. government debt supply is determined by spending and tax levels set by the president and Congress. The federal government typically spends more each year than what it receives in tax collections and other revenue, and Treasury covers that annual deficit with borrowed money, issuing securities due in as few as 30 days to as long as 30 years. All things equal, larger deficits and more accumulated debt mean higher interest rates. Deficits and debt are expected to rise following the passage in Congress earlier this month of Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act." On the demand side, the U.S. enjoys a privileged position that holds down government borrowing costs since it is still considered a relatively risk-free investment with plenty of supply, deep and well-functioning markets and a history of strong institutions and legal norms. Current returns above 4% are particularly attractive for large pension funds or retirees who want income while being assured their investment is safe. But, like any borrower, the U.S. government must pay a premium for the risk an investor takes on. Locking up money in a 10-year Treasury note means other opportunities are foregone. Rates of interest, inflation and economic growth may all change in that span, and investors want compensation for those risks. With the Fed policy rate as a starting point, all of those factors are piled on in the form of a "term premium." Intangibles, like trust in a country's institutions, also matter. When Trump's threats to fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell intensified in April, yields rose and the president backed off - a sign that global markets have an important vote in central bank independence. Trump recently sent Powell a handwritten note with a list of central bank rates and penciled in where he thought the Fed's policy rate should be, near the bottom. U.S. central bank policymakers say it would be risky to cut rates until it is clear that Trump's new tariffs - many already imposed and more still to come - aren't going to stoke inflation. Central bankers often refer to policy formulas or rules that relate their inflation target to incoming and forecasted economic data to point to an appropriate interest rate. None suggest a Fed policy rate as low as Trump wants.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
New research shows investors' politics are shaping their portfolios
The success of investors' stock market portfolios is increasingly dependent on how they vote, new research has found. Americans are increasingly buying and selling stocks based on their political associations with profound consequences for their portfolios. There is currently a 47 percentage point gap between Republicans thinking stocks will rise in the next six months compared to their more bearish Democrat peers. Meanwhile Democrats who expect stocks to fall over the next six months exceed Republicans by 59 percentage points. It is the largest sentiment gap on the stock market's trajectory since 2001, according to Gallup data. This 'optimism' gap is leading both political persuasions to make different trading decisions. Wealthy individuals who voted red or blue are also increasingly buying different stocks, The Wall Street Journal reported. Investing $1,000 in 1953 but only holding stock when a Republican was president would yield $29,000 today, according to Paul Hickey at Bespoke Investment Group. Doing the same but only investing when a Democrat was in the White House would roughly double the sum. However, neither strategy would beat simply buying and holding throughout the entire period, which would leave the investor with $1.9 million today. The divide between Red and Blue voters' portfolios began in 2013 under Barack Obama's presidency. The gap continued to widen in the following years following Trump's election in 2016, according to Elena Pikulina who collected and studied data from more than 300 independent investment advisers. 'If I know how people voted, I could tell you how they feel about the stock market,' David Sadkin, partner at Bel Air Investment Advisors, told the Journal. Sadkin recalled how one of his wealthy clients, who do not approve of the President, inquired about moving all their assets abroad because they were afraid they would sink under Trump's second term. On the other hand, Trump voter Bruce Besten, 68, told the Journal that he believes his investments will do well under the current administration. 'In general, when a person with his mindset is in office, it's good for the business environment,' the restaurant owner from Louisville, Kentucky explained. 'What's good for the business environment is good for the stock market.' He told the outlet that media 'hype' about how tariffs would batter the economy created buying opportunities for him during the market collapse in April , when he bought American stocks including Nvidia.
