|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 01 2017 09:08 Plansix wrote:
That is definitely a form that someone can fill out.
Okay, fine. What is it a form for?
|
On December 01 2017 09:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 08:47 KlaCkoN wrote:On December 01 2017 08:42 TheTenthDoc wrote:
As long as it forces graduate students at private institutions to take out loans to pay taxes they seem to be happy with the tax bill. Yeah the 200+% tax hike on grad students is by far the best part of this so-called tax cut bill xp. During the CNN debate Ted Cruz and Tim Scott halfheartedly promised they wouldn't vote for it with the grad student thing in it. Said the senate version doesn't have it and so on. When Trump says this tax plan is bad for him personally even Danglars knows he's just outright lying right? EDIT: I need to know that you aren't delusional enough to think Trump is being honest when he says this tax bill will be bad for him and other billionaires (unless this is 57d chess and he's clairvoyantly pointing out passing this will end with their heads in buckets.)
Well duh. Come on, that ones easy.
But I remember that my posting and take on “a lawyer dog” honestly surprised you, so the problem might be your apprehension generally.
|
The grad student tax hike has nothing to do with FAFSA and doesn't affect any undergrad scholarships as far as I'm aware. It pretty much only hits masters and Ph D students.
What it does is make it so you have to claim tuition waived as income in graduate school, unless it comes from a very particular kind of fellowship, which means receiving approximately 8000 dollars of taxable income at a low-cost state institution and approximately 40,000 dollars at many other institutions. But you don't actually see a dime of that money, it just all pops up on your next tax bill.
Or institutions manage to play a super effective shell game or make a fancy category of tuition. Either way it's pretty gibberish policy if you want to take a strike at the increasing cost of undergraduate education, and not a great way to deal with the increasing cost of graduate education either; it seemed purely designed to extract money from a small group with limited power (both foreign and domestic students) to marginally offset the tax breaks.
|
On December 01 2017 09:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 09:03 IgnE wrote:On December 01 2017 09:00 xDaunt wrote:
The easy federal money and subsidies for higher education is precisely what has made higher education so damned unaffordable in the first place. Why do we want to perpetuate that cycle? It needs to be dismantled. "federal money and subsidies" are not the same as loans. dont attack tuition grants if you have a problems w the availability of loans. your position makes no sense and doesnt even appear as if you understand the issues How would you describe FAFSA?
what a red herring. we are talking about graduate students here who have their tuition waived as part of their graduate program funding. they arent taking out loans. they are not the reason that "higher education [is] so damned unaffordable." in most cases there are only a limited number of spots in the program and everyone who gets admitted has their tuition waived.
you presumably are talking about LOANS to undergraduates provided by the federal government for which there is an argument to be made that the cost of undergraduate education is being artificially inflated by a giant pool of inexhaustible non-dischargeable debt money.
|
On December 01 2017 09:27 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The grad student tax hike has nothing to do with FAFSA and doesn't affect any undergrad scholarships as far as I'm aware. It pretty much only hits masters and Ph D students.
What it does is make it so you have to claim tuition waived as income in graduate school, unless it comes from a very particular kind of fellowship, which means receiving approximately 8000 dollars of taxable income at a low-cost state institution and approximately 40,000 dollars at many other institutions. But you don't actually see a dime of that money, it just all pops up on your next tax bill.
PhD thing has absolutely nothing to do with FAFSA. For a friend of mine, she takes home ~21K/year. This bill would increase her taxes by ~6K/year. Plain and simply not possible for her to pay her rent and stay afloat.
|
On December 01 2017 09:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 09:08 Plansix wrote:
That is definitely a form that someone can fill out. Okay, fine. What is it a form for?
Something a PHD impacted by this tax cut would not find very useful.
|
The awful thing is that any grad student who ends up taking out loans to pay these tax bills will 1) do so through federally subsidized loans like FAFSA and 2) won't be able to get decent FAFSA support because their "taxable income" has risen by sometimes up to 150%.
Oh, and the reason these waived tuitions are so high? So that universities can milk wealthy foreign masters students, not exactly overwhelming the federal student loan system.
I do admit to be surprised at how ready some people are to redistribute wealth away from graduate students with tangible gross incomes of ~20K a year trying to get training to improve societal goods generation, though.
|
On December 01 2017 09:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 09:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 01 2017 08:47 KlaCkoN wrote:On December 01 2017 08:42 TheTenthDoc wrote:
As long as it forces graduate students at private institutions to take out loans to pay taxes they seem to be happy with the tax bill. Yeah the 200+% tax hike on grad students is by far the best part of this so-called tax cut bill xp. During the CNN debate Ted Cruz and Tim Scott halfheartedly promised they wouldn't vote for it with the grad student thing in it. Said the senate version doesn't have it and so on. When Trump says this tax plan is bad for him personally even Danglars knows he's just outright lying right? EDIT: I need to know that you aren't delusional enough to think Trump is being honest when he says this tax bill will be bad for him and other billionaires (unless this is 57d chess and he's clairvoyantly pointing out passing this will end with their heads in buckets.) Well duh. Come on, that ones easy. But I remember that my posting and take on “a lawyer dog” honestly surprised you, so the problem might be your apprehension generally.
Why do you think he keeps intentionally perpetuating this outright lie as the president of the US?
What happened to the judge in that "lawyer dog" case btw?
|
On December 01 2017 09:00 xDaunt wrote:
The easy federal money and subsidies for higher education is precisely what has made higher education so damned unaffordable in the first place. Why do we want to perpetuate that cycle? It needs to be dismantled.
IDK.. states have been cutting back on higher ed spending for decades. Federal programs took a hit in the late 90's / early 2000's (can't remember which) w/bankruptcy changes.
I think federal loans turn an accounting profit to the government currently.
|
On December 01 2017 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 09:26 Danglars wrote:On December 01 2017 09:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 01 2017 08:47 KlaCkoN wrote:On December 01 2017 08:42 TheTenthDoc wrote:
As long as it forces graduate students at private institutions to take out loans to pay taxes they seem to be happy with the tax bill. Yeah the 200+% tax hike on grad students is by far the best part of this so-called tax cut bill xp. During the CNN debate Ted Cruz and Tim Scott halfheartedly promised they wouldn't vote for it with the grad student thing in it. Said the senate version doesn't have it and so on. When Trump says this tax plan is bad for him personally even Danglars knows he's just outright lying right? EDIT: I need to know that you aren't delusional enough to think Trump is being honest when he says this tax bill will be bad for him and other billionaires (unless this is 57d chess and he's clairvoyantly pointing out passing this will end with their heads in buckets.) Well duh. Come on, that ones easy. But I remember that my posting and take on “a lawyer dog” honestly surprised you, so the problem might be your apprehension generally. Why do you think he keeps intentionally perpetuating this outright lie as the president of the US? What happened to the judge in that "lawyer dog" case btw?
Why does the president lie about tons of things big and small? It’s in his nature. I’m sure there’s more than five nonfiction books that claim they know the specifics.
Other than bad press, nothing I’ve heard about the judge.
|
|
|
On December 01 2017 09:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 01 2017 09:26 Danglars wrote:On December 01 2017 09:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 01 2017 08:47 KlaCkoN wrote:On December 01 2017 08:42 TheTenthDoc wrote:
As long as it forces graduate students at private institutions to take out loans to pay taxes they seem to be happy with the tax bill. Yeah the 200+% tax hike on grad students is by far the best part of this so-called tax cut bill xp. During the CNN debate Ted Cruz and Tim Scott halfheartedly promised they wouldn't vote for it with the grad student thing in it. Said the senate version doesn't have it and so on. When Trump says this tax plan is bad for him personally even Danglars knows he's just outright lying right? EDIT: I need to know that you aren't delusional enough to think Trump is being honest when he says this tax bill will be bad for him and other billionaires (unless this is 57d chess and he's clairvoyantly pointing out passing this will end with their heads in buckets.) Well duh. Come on, that ones easy. But I remember that my posting and take on “a lawyer dog” honestly surprised you, so the problem might be your apprehension generally. Why do you think he keeps intentionally perpetuating this outright lie as the president of the US? What happened to the judge in that "lawyer dog" case btw? Why does the president lie about tons of things big and small? It’s in his nature. I’m sure there’s more than five nonfiction books that claim they know the specifics. Other than bad press, nothing I’ve heard about the judge.
You think it's acceptable to have the president blatantly lie about legislation they want to sign?
Do you still think more will happen to the judge or will bad press be the end of it?
|
On December 01 2017 09:20 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 09:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 01 2017 08:41 mozoku wrote:On December 01 2017 07:43 TheYango wrote:On December 01 2017 02:46 xDaunt wrote:
This is an absurd statement. Just look at all of the technological development that has occurred in the US that has both enriched the creators and improved the quality of life of the consuming public. Wealth and income inequality -- and more specifically, the possibility thereof -- drives innovation. My impression is that most of the dominant innovation that drove major shifts in society and personal quality of life were from the moderately well-off who became wealthy through their innovations. It's true that they were enriched by their work, but a large motivator is the aspirational component of the moderately well-off to become wealthy. The ultra-wealthy don't have the same drive to innovate because the marginal utility of becoming even wealthier is much smaller--they're much more interested in keeping what they have. It would seem to me that if your goal is to drive innovation, the idea wealth distribution would be a large middle class with a high degree of upward social mobility--i.e. there are paths to become wealthy that encourage innovation and enterprise. "Large middle class" implies low income inequality because it implies more people near the median household income and less toward the extremes. This is always going to be at odds with the ultra-wealthy because "old money" aristocracy has always historically opposed the rise of "new money" even though "new money" is where the innovation and enterprise that you ascribe to wealth has come from. I don't think anyone is arguing that the ultra-wealthy themselves are innovating. The ultra-wealthy merely want the best return on their investment. The innovation still comes from the middle class, but is brought to market with capital provided by the ultra-wealthy. Redistribution limits this pipeline in two ways. First, due to how finance works in the human world, the ultra-wealthy are more likely to invest large amounts of capital into the most productive innovations (because you and I are too worried about an entrepreneur losing our retirement funds, while Bill Gates doesn't have that concern). On the other side, redistribution affects the riskiest and most productive most negatively. If my returns are hypothetically capped at 1%, and there's a risk-free investment returning 1%, there's no incentive for my to invest in anything that would have produced a higher than 1% return (i.e. higher growth). The fairest counterarguments I've seen so far that GDP isn't necessarily the best proxy for utility, as GDP favors the wealthy's utility (basically Kwark's argument), and that if inequality were to reach a point where potential innovators are being precluded from innovation (lack of education or useful industry experience) then that will negatively affect growth as well. The second point is mitigated (possibly dominated depending on the specifics?) by the fact that higher inequality leads to greater availability of capital though. On December 01 2017 08:28 IgnE wrote:On December 01 2017 07:43 TheYango wrote:On December 01 2017 02:46 xDaunt wrote:
This is an absurd statement. Just look at all of the technological development that has occurred in the US that has both enriched the creators and improved the quality of life of the consuming public. Wealth and income inequality -- and more specifically, the possibility thereof -- drives innovation. My impression is that most of the dominant innovation that drove major shifts in society and personal quality of life were from the moderately well-off who became wealthy through their innovations. It's true that they were enriched by their work, but a large motivator is the aspirational component of the moderately well-off to become wealthy. The ultra-wealthy don't have the same drive to innovate because the marginal utility of becoming even wealthier is much smaller--they're much more interested in keeping what they have. It would seem to me that if your goal is to drive innovation, the idea wealth distribution would be a large middle class with a high degree of upward social mobility--i.e. there are paths to become wealthy that encourage innovation and enterprise. "Large middle class" implies low income inequality because it implies more people near the median household income and less toward the extremes. This is always going to be at odds with the ultra-wealthy because "old money" aristocracy has always historically opposed the rise of "new money" even though "new money" is where the innovation and enterprise that you ascribe to wealth has come from. well, calculations of marginal wealth utility are such an insignificant factor when it comes to what really motivates people to innovate that discussions like this are basically counterproductive. we should just stop entertaining this economic incentives story all together While I don't agree this is true from the innovator's perspective, it's certainly not true from the investor's perspective. To them, the economic incentive is all that matters. See my point above. You can't create wealth without capital. If you hamstring returns from the capital perspective, you simply won't have growth. Unless you can start magically creating utopian communist comrades to create your own country with that is. Is it actually true that the rich invest more in 'riskier' assets? This came up before but I couldn't find anything on it after some mild poking around. First Google hit for me says it in the first paragraphIt's basic finance. Risk tolerance grows with excess. If you're rich enough to buy a yacht and not feel it, you can certainly afford to invest that yacht's worth of capital in an ultra-high risk investment and expect a higher return than you would investing the yacht's worth of capital into treasuries. The same principle is why you have to be an accredited investor to invest in hedge funds. The government is trying to save people from their own financial stupidity.
A rental property purchased with 100% equity would be low risk (zero chance of default).
A rental property purchased with 1% equity would be high risk (much higher chance of default).
The increase in leverage would yield a higher (expected) return to the equity holder. That would be irrelevant to economic growth, as the asset would be preforming the same in either case. Actually, the high debt scenario could be a drag on economic growth due to a debt overhang scenario. Defaults can also cause net harm.
A more normal example, say a business with 20% debt to equity financing vs 25% debt to equity... we're really just shifting the risk around. If the wealthier were 'more willing' to buy equity in the marginally-higher leverage business we're not really doing anything beyond shifting risk.
|
At least according to r/politics, the tax bill is down for the night; I don't think McConnell thinks he has the votes 100% until tomorrow, and doesn't want a healthcare repeat. R Senators might not have been bought off with the conflicting and impossible promises as he thought?
|
The people who voted against the ACA repeal should vote against this bill since it does the same thing (but worse).
I don't see how it can pass.
|
On December 01 2017 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 09:49 Danglars wrote:On December 01 2017 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 01 2017 09:26 Danglars wrote:On December 01 2017 09:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 01 2017 08:47 KlaCkoN wrote:On December 01 2017 08:42 TheTenthDoc wrote:
As long as it forces graduate students at private institutions to take out loans to pay taxes they seem to be happy with the tax bill. Yeah the 200+% tax hike on grad students is by far the best part of this so-called tax cut bill xp. During the CNN debate Ted Cruz and Tim Scott halfheartedly promised they wouldn't vote for it with the grad student thing in it. Said the senate version doesn't have it and so on. When Trump says this tax plan is bad for him personally even Danglars knows he's just outright lying right? EDIT: I need to know that you aren't delusional enough to think Trump is being honest when he says this tax bill will be bad for him and other billionaires (unless this is 57d chess and he's clairvoyantly pointing out passing this will end with their heads in buckets.) Well duh. Come on, that ones easy. But I remember that my posting and take on “a lawyer dog” honestly surprised you, so the problem might be your apprehension generally. Why do you think he keeps intentionally perpetuating this outright lie as the president of the US? What happened to the judge in that "lawyer dog" case btw? Why does the president lie about tons of things big and small? It’s in his nature. I’m sure there’s more than five nonfiction books that claim they know the specifics. Other than bad press, nothing I’ve heard about the judge. You think it's acceptable to have the president blatantly lie about legislation they want to sign? Do you still think more will happen to the judge or will bad press be the end of it?
It’s pretty bad. It reminds me of keeping my doctor and the typical family’s health insurance will drop $2500. Crowd size, the best deals, you name it, he lies about it. One of the reasons he was so low in my primary rankings.
I always said he should have effective backlash from the legislature or the people, but I’m not a resident.
|
On December 01 2017 09:28 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 09:05 xDaunt wrote:On December 01 2017 09:03 IgnE wrote:On December 01 2017 09:00 xDaunt wrote:
The easy federal money and subsidies for higher education is precisely what has made higher education so damned unaffordable in the first place. Why do we want to perpetuate that cycle? It needs to be dismantled. "federal money and subsidies" are not the same as loans. dont attack tuition grants if you have a problems w the availability of loans. your position makes no sense and doesnt even appear as if you understand the issues How would you describe FAFSA? what a red herring. we are talking about graduate students here who have their tuition waived as part of their graduate program funding. they arent taking out loans. they are not the reason that "higher education [is] so damned unaffordable." in most cases there are only a limited number of spots in the program and everyone who gets admitted has their tuition waived. you presumably are talking about LOANS to undergraduates provided by the federal government for which there is an argument to be made that the cost of undergraduate education is being artificially inflated by a giant pool of inexhaustible non-dischargeable debt money.
Who is “we?” You responded to my post. And your presumption is correct.
|
On December 01 2017 10:02 Gorsameth wrote:
The people who voted against the ACA repeal should vote against this bill since it does the same thing (but worse).
I don't see how it can pass.
I've read McCain is for the tax reform, so not so sure about it being another repeat of ACA repeal.
|
On December 01 2017 10:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 01 2017 09:49 Danglars wrote:On December 01 2017 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 01 2017 09:26 Danglars wrote:On December 01 2017 09:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 01 2017 08:47 KlaCkoN wrote:On December 01 2017 08:42 TheTenthDoc wrote:
As long as it forces graduate students at private institutions to take out loans to pay taxes they seem to be happy with the tax bill. Yeah the 200+% tax hike on grad students is by far the best part of this so-called tax cut bill xp. During the CNN debate Ted Cruz and Tim Scott halfheartedly promised they wouldn't vote for it with the grad student thing in it. Said the senate version doesn't have it and so on. When Trump says this tax plan is bad for him personally even Danglars knows he's just outright lying right? EDIT: I need to know that you aren't delusional enough to think Trump is being honest when he says this tax bill will be bad for him and other billionaires (unless this is 57d chess and he's clairvoyantly pointing out passing this will end with their heads in buckets.) Well duh. Come on, that ones easy. But I remember that my posting and take on “a lawyer dog” honestly surprised you, so the problem might be your apprehension generally. Why do you think he keeps intentionally perpetuating this outright lie as the president of the US? What happened to the judge in that "lawyer dog" case btw? Why does the president lie about tons of things big and small? It’s in his nature. I’m sure there’s more than five nonfiction books that claim they know the specifics. Other than bad press, nothing I’ve heard about the judge. You think it's acceptable to have the president blatantly lie about legislation they want to sign? Do you still think more will happen to the judge or will bad press be the end of it? It’s pretty bad. It reminds me of keeping my doctor and the typical family’s health insurance will drop $2500. Crowd size, the best deals, you name it, he lies about it. One of the reasons he was so low in my primary rankings. I always said he should have effective backlash from the legislature or the people, but I’m not a resident.
Pretty bad, but acceptable right?
You still think he will or not? If not, why not?
|
On December 01 2017 09:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 09:00 xDaunt wrote:
The easy federal money and subsidies for higher education is precisely what has made higher education so damned unaffordable in the first place. Why do we want to perpetuate that cycle? It needs to be dismantled. IDK.. states have been cutting back on higher ed spending for decades. Federal programs took a hit in the late 90's / early 2000's (can't remember which) w/bankruptcy changes. I think federal loans turn an accounting profit to the government currently.
You’re talking about the wrong problem. I’m referring to the cost of higher education, not the government deficits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
