36 ms·

If it has no value, then there is no value to waive. If there is no value to waive, there is no value transfer. Either they should pay taxes on it, or the unive

by darawk 9y ago

If it has no value, then there is no value to waive. If there is no value to waive, there is no value transfer. Either they should pay taxes on it, or the university should stop 'waiving' tuition and simply make it 'free'. What absolutely should not happen is a special entry in our tax policy for this perverted case. If it is indeed simply a 'book keeping' exercise, then what it really is is an attempt to subvert some other policy. I'm not sure what that policy might be (student loan terms, perhaps?) But whatever it is, it's that policy that should change. Not tax policy.

throwawayjava 9y ago
If you want to reduce research funding to pay for a tax cut, then do that directly! Don't add 7k to the tax burden of people making 30k a year.
- darawk 9y ago
  No, paying for things directly is how they ought to be paid for. Paying for them through tax cuts is why we have a perverse tax policy. If you want to subsidize something, subsidize it. Or, if it's so important, maybe the universities should be paying for it. They have plenty of money. That being said, I don't mind the government subsidizing research. What I do mind is them subsidizing it through tax policy.
Fomite 9y ago
> If it is indeed simply a 'book keeping' exercise, then what it really is is an attempt to subvert some other policy. I'm not sure what that policy might be (student loan terms, perhaps?) But whatever it is, it's that policy that should change. Not tax policy. It's an attempt to recognize the problem of needing students to be fully enrolled to be defined as students often by law. It's far easier to put in a tax waiver to take care of the consequences of that than it is to change that policy, at a state level, and figure out all the downstream issues of that - which will also probably impact the tax code.
- darawk 9y ago
  Exactly. And why do they need to be defined as students by law?
  - Fomite 9y ago
    For one thing, so they can be eligible for student services like health care. So student loan repayments don't trigger while they're still in school. Any international student on a student visa. Accurate tracking of which professors go to which graduate students, and the means to record their progress. And that's just off the top of my head.

by darawk 9y ago

throwawayjava 9y ago

If you want to reduce research funding to pay for a tax cut, then do that directly! Don't add 7k to the tax burden of people making 30k a year.

darawk 9y ago
No, paying for things directly is how they ought to be paid for. Paying for them through tax cuts is why we have a perverse tax policy. If you want to subsidize something, subsidize it. Or, if it's so important, maybe the universities should be paying for it. They have plenty of money. That being said, I don't mind the government subsidizing research. What I do mind is them subsidizing it through tax policy.

Fomite 9y ago

> If it is indeed simply a 'book keeping' exercise, then what it really is is an attempt to subvert some other policy. I'm not sure what that policy might be (student loan terms, perhaps?) But whatever it is, it's that policy that should change. Not tax policy. It's an attempt to recognize the problem of needing students to be fully enrolled to be defined as students often by law. It's far easier to put in a tax waiver to take care of the consequences of that than it is to change that policy, at a state level, and figure out all the downstream issues of that - which will also probably impact the tax code.

darawk 9y ago
Exactly. And why do they need to be defined as students by law?
- Fomite 9y ago
  For one thing, so they can be eligible for student services like health care. So student loan repayments don't trigger while they're still in school. Any international student on a student visa. Accurate tracking of which professors go to which graduate students, and the means to record their progress. And that's just off the top of my head.