Think your tuition is too high? Apparently Pittsburgh mayor Luke Ravenstahl didn't think so.

Ravenstahl planned to add a 1 percent tax on college tuition to the students who attend the city's seven colleges and universities, according to USA Today. The move was designed to raise funds for the city in the midst of the struggling economy. Thankfully, the proposal was shot down yesterday by a state oversight committee because it was deemed illegal.

Students everywhere are by no means immune from the crippling effects of the economy. We are feeling the crunch just as much as anyone else, especially because we are either unemployed or making next-to-nothing in part-time jobs.

The students who would really get hammered by this policy are those who must finance their education by themselves. The tax would be unfair for all students, but it would levy an unnecessary burden on those who must pay their own way through school. Even if a student's tuition is paid by a parent, the tax unfairly charges them.

One percent of the tuition paid by a student at Carlow University would mean a tax of about $200. However, according to the USA Today article, only 6 percent of all students at Carlow pay the full yearly tuition of about $21,000 -- if 94 percent of the enrollment can't post tuition, how would it be sensible to increase the cost with a tax?

Perhaps the most ridiculous part of the entire scenario is Ravenstahl's reasoning for imposing the tax. In order to supplement the city's finances, he planned to charge students because they don't help pay for the city's public works.

In Ravenstahl's words, "they're not paying a dime for any city services they might receive." I can buy that -- students, in many cases, don't have to pay property taxes and other fees that support local infrastructure. But that doesn't mean they don't add money to the city's pockets; in fact, students pump money into the local economy simply by spending their disposable income.

Think about it -- with every pizza ordered, sweatshirt bought and movie watched, the 100,000 students in the Pittsburgh area provide a steady flow of cash into local businesses. At least a portion of this money then makes its way back to the city through a variety of local business taxes, property taxes and other fees. If students were forced to pay a tuition tax, they would be supplying the city with even more money by paying them twice.

As unfair and sleazy as Ravenstahl's plan is, it's easy to see how it could appeal to politicians in college towns. If it is revised to fit into state law, many cities and college towns across the country will probably discuss similar taxes. A place like State College would be an ideal location in which to institute a tuition tax. According to census estimates, the student population outnumbers the town's population by a few thousand, so the tax would greatly expand the pool of area residents through which public funds could be gathered. In addition, Penn State's campus creates a huge geographic portion of the town that the borough council cannot make money from. A tuition tax would provide the leverage for the town to make money from a protected area.

The state oversight committee got it right -- not only is taxing tuition unjust, it is also illegal in Pennsylvania. Ravenstahl's plan is unnerving, though, because of its lack of consideration for students coupled with its presumed appeal to council members in college towns. The attempt to tax education could send ripples throughout college communities across the nation and put an unfair burden on students and those people who help pay for their college education.

Luckily for me, I won't be in school to see it, and I hope you aren't either.