To "Frozen Fractals" so what the analysis shows is that the tax proposal
would result in more locals getting into graduate programs because the increase
in taxes is too much for people coming from out of state.I also
noticed that the analysis does not mention Educational tax credits. Would those
tax credits now be available to a grad student? If they are, then even a $4000
increase in taxes is eliminated via tax credits.If the increases in
taxes are erased or nearly erased by tax credits, how does that change the
analysis?I do question the analysis when predicting what will happen
to enrollment levels at public and private universities. It is hard to predict
what people are willing to do to get a graduate degree.The analysis
seems to be a worst case scenario that only looked superficially at the US tax
@RedshirtUtah's Dean of Graduate Studies has posted analysis on it.
The estimates are that the typical in-state Utah graduate student would be
paying around 1,500 more a year in taxes while the typical out-of-state Utah
graduate student (so like me my first couple years here before getting in-state
residency) would be paying around 4,000 more a year in taxes. And Utah's
one of the cheaper states for higher education so these numbers would be higher
at many other universities across the country.
If the Feds are going to consider tuition waivers as income does that mean you
also qualify for the tuition tax credits?What I want to know is how
will this alter their take home pay? While it sounds like a huge tax bump, what
does this do to their final tax bill?One thing that I can see this
doing is to get the grad students off the welfare rolls since many will no
longer qualify for welfare. Some of the married grad students may have to ask
their spouse to work to support them while pursuing their degrees.
If grad students were billionaires, the GOP would certainly give them some big
tax breaks. Everyone knows that billionaires just can't seem to make ends
Denverite,Why do fancy schools charge so much, same reason big
pharma does. Because they can. The student much like the person needing the
drug has little choice but to pay.
Why keep it to waivers for graduate school tuition. Why not also include
athletic scholarships. A bet the red state Congressmen would be very fond of
@Denverite"Why does MIT (or any other fancy school) charge so much for
grad degrees? One reason is, the current system allows them to and forces
students to work like dogs *and* assume gazillions in debt for the
"privilege."Suppose tuition waivers, and all other forms of
support for grad students, were taxed. Over time, MIT would have fewer people
applying because they're less willing to assume the financial burden. Once
MIT has few enough people applying, and some of their staff face layoffs (which
is what it would take for anything to change), smart people there would figure
out a way to reduce the cost of their degree. This would cause more people to
apply , and so on."This isn't undergraduate study. Graduate
program tuition waivers means you aren't paying for tuition so none of that
"gazillions of debt" stuff is applicable for these. They're getting
stipends too to work on graduate research. I paid off my student loans in grad
school at the U. For me this change wouldn't have stopped me from going to
grad school but with 13,000 more in taxes over the years I'd have about 10k
in student loans at this point instead of 0.
Ah yes, let's lighten the burden of the wealthiest among us and place it on
our students. Good old GOP values. Salt of the earth.
I sympathize with those who would have the rules changed on them mid-stream.
That would stink, and if I were in the writer's position, especially at a
fancy school, I would be really unhappy too.However, taxing tuition
waivers may allow the free market to, over time, improve the situation. Why does MIT (or any other fancy school) charge so much for grad
degrees? One reason is, the current system allows them to and forces students to
work like dogs *and* assume gazillions in debt for the "privilege." Suppose tuition waivers, and all other forms of support for grad
students, were taxed. Over time, MIT would have fewer people applying because
they're less willing to assume the financial burden. Once MIT has few
enough people applying, and some of their staff face layoffs (which is what it
would take for anything to change), smart people there would figure out a way to
reduce the cost of their degree. This would cause more people to apply , and so
on.To really make it interesting, and reduce some health-care cost
indirectly, I would get rid of all federal loans for degrees beyond a
bachelor's. Medical schools would get a lot cheaper in a very short time,
for the same reason.
it would seem that the US congressional leaders need to attend economics 101
Mr. Hill is right; this would be disastrous for students and for Utah. Public
universities, like the University of Utah, don't have the funds to offset
these tax increases. As a result, either they will have to accept fewer students
and pay them more, or do nothing, and fewer students will have the means to
enter grad school. This would be terrible for Utah in particular, which has the
fastest growing STEM job sector in the country. Who is going to fill those jobs
when STEM education crashes?
The Congress is desperate to balance the budget and well it should be. However,
taxing tuition waivers is absolute foolishness. Most graduate students struggle
financially to get through school. Most do not come from affluent families. In
my experience, we had to pay taxes on the monthly living allowance or
assistantship the university provided. We lived in marginal housing. Spouses and
children joined in the sacrifice to successfully get the degree. Most of us
would not have been in the PhD program in the first place should we have faced
an income tax obligation on the tuition waiver. Universities have become, in
many instances, an engine of economic development for the region in which they
are located. Why would we want to shut that down?Rather than attempt
to increase tax revenue by counterproductive means, why not cut the
government's need for money ? Begin by reducing all facets of governmental
expenditures except national defense by 25 percent. Use the funds saved to
balance the budget and begin to make payments on the debt. There will be screams
of anguish. However, we have indisputable evidence that you cannot borrow
yourself into prosperity for the government has tried.
Well, MIT will have to pay him more. It's as simple as that. It's not
like they don't have a ton of money.
Investment income should also be taxed at a regular rate then.Oh! It
isn't? Well, that makes it clear who this bill is really for.This bill was written by billionaires for billionaires.
This is so wrong.Education and opportunities should not be attacked
so that a billionaire who donated to legislators can pay fewer taxes.The GOP is desperate to pass a bill but nothing they want to do is popular
because there simply aren't enough millionaires that vote.
Sadly, it is evident to me that the lights have gone out in Congress, and in the
Republican party also. As a life-long conservative, generally voting with
Republicans, and glad to do so, their failure to govern in recent years, and
especially NOW, has brought me to think that a new party is needed, OR many of
the GOP need to get their heads out of someone else's bank account and
GOVERN FOR THE PEOPLE, instead of the elite!
Mr. Hill, thank you for your excellent and insightful analysis and good luck
with your PhD. Hopefully this will get straightened out and you'll be able
to enjoy many fruitful years in Kendall Square.
Blame it on the way our money is backed. it is backed by debt. With every bebt ,
money can be printed. A bank barrows from a different bank an can print more
money so there is no limit on the money that can be printed. In less no one
barrows, at that point banks fail, and you as a unsecured lender lost all your
A question for members of Congress: how is a tuition waiver "taxable
income?" Will students also be taxed on scholarships they receive? Will
students attending an institution like Harvard receiving need-based aid to
reduce the substantial tuition be forced to pay taxes on it (or see their
parents taxed)?These waivers are not money students will ever see or earn;
these are investments made by universities in an individual they believe is
qualified to advance the mission of the school and their field of interest.
These waivers are often paid back to the university in the form of patent
royalties, recognition for excellent research, alumni donations, and academic
prestige.If tuition waivers for Ph.D candidates are considered taxable
income, then I suggest that our esteemed congressional representatives examine
another source of potentially "taxable income" that will generate far
more revenue than taxing a bunch of broke grad students: Social Security
benefits. No? Too unpopular, you say? Then stop trying to pull a fast one on a
target too small you deem too small to raise a strong enough outcry.
It seems that the GOP is desperate to pass any bill, so they can declare victory
and move on. It's unfortunate that there isn't a desperation to
cut expenses, rather than taxes.