5 ms·

At the same time, repealing the tax break hurts those least privileged the most. Why is that making things more "fair"?

rayiner 9y ago
Graduate students, as a class, are not the "least privileged." Most are from families that are pretty educated and well-off to begin with.
- tanderson92 9y ago
  That is true, and is unrelated to my comment. I was referring to the least privileged members as a subset of that class. I know plenty of PhD students who were the first in their family to attend college, or graduate high school.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    It depends on what you do with the extra revenue after you repeal. Repealing it and using the revenue to lower corporate taxes may or may not be fair (maybe it creates more jobs for lower-income people, who knows). Repealing it to increase the earned-income tax credit would almost certainly be fair. You'd be getting rid of a tax break that disproportionately benefits more privileged people, and expanding a tax break that disproportionately benefits less advantaged people.
    - tanderson92 9y ago
      > Repealing it to increase the earned-income tax credit would almost certainly be fair. False. The IRS states that the EITC only applies to those over age 25 if you do not have a qualifying child (many graduate students fail both). Also, some graduate students fail the most basic tests for EITC-eligibility since they do not have "earned income" despite having taxable income. Another thing is that the tuition being added to AGI means every single graduate student will be ineligible for the EITC just on AGI grounds. Anyway the plan uses it to fund corporate tax cuts so your hypotheticals don't really apply -- we have a concrete bill to discuss. See: https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-income-tax-credit/claiming-eitc-without-a-qualifying-child https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-in... https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-income-tax-credit/do-i-qualify-for-earned-income-tax-credit-eitc https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-in...
      - rayiner 9y ago
        The fact that graduate students may not be eligible for the EITC is irrelevant. The point is that the people who are eligible for the EITC are statistically much more likely to be underprivileged than graduate students are (as a group). As to the plan to use the tax break to fund corporate tax cuts, it depends on economic conclusions that are beyond my understanding. I tend to be of the mind that we shouldn't tax corporations at all, and focus on taxing individuals.
        tanderson92 9y ago
        Since you acknowledge the increases in the EITC are unhelpful to these underprivileged students you are then saying it is acceptable to raise taxes on the underprivileged portion of a largely privileged group because it's statistically hard to tease out the difference. That's...heartless? Balancing it out in other members of the lower income class doesn't really help, IMO. You are penalizing people who are underprivileged for trying to improve their lot in life and move into a higher class with one of the best means possible: higher educational attainment. It's obscene. P.S. your point about taxation of corporations is interesting too: corporates shouldn't be considered people for purposes of taxation but can participate in political activity and speech (political donations) using rights of individuals. Nice deal, if you can get it.
        rayiner 9y ago
        > Since you acknowledge the increases in the EITC are unhelpful to these underprivileged students you are then saying it is acceptable to raise taxes on the underprivileged portion of a largely privileged group because it's statistically hard to tease out the difference. That's...heartless? No, it's utilitarianism. A tax break that disproportionately benefits the educated and well-off shouldn't be preserved just because a small minority of the people it benefits are not well off. Better to eliminate it in favor of a tax break that primarily goes to disadvantaged people. > You are penalizing people who are underprivileged for trying to improve their lot in life and move into a higher class with one of the best means possible: higher educational attainment. Someone who has gotten into graduate school necessarily has an undergraduate degree, and probably can make a decent living. At that point, it's better to focus government money on people who aren't so lucky. > corporates shouldn't be considered people for purposes of taxation but can participate in political activity and speech (political donations) using rights of individuals. The "people" thing is a red herring. "People" shouldn't lose their free speech rights just because they act in concert through a corporation. That has no bearing on whether "people" are more appropriately taxed at the corporate level or the individual one. The latter is a purely utilitarian concern. I don't think there is anything morally wrong with taxing corporations, I just think it's not worth the hassle given how easy it is for corporations to move to low-tax countries.
  - hcknwscommenter 9y ago
    Here here. As a first in the family to attend college Ph.D. graduate, this tax bill seems terrible to me. Luckily, I finished my Ph.D. two decades ago. Thus, America continues its long decline by older generations pulling the ladder up against the youngers.

Graduate students, as a class, are not the "least privileged." Most are from families that are pretty educated and well-off to begin with.

tanderson92 9y ago
That is true, and is unrelated to my comment. I was referring to the least privileged members as a subset of that class. I know plenty of PhD students who were the first in their family to attend college, or graduate high school.
- rayiner 9y ago
  It depends on what you do with the extra revenue after you repeal. Repealing it and using the revenue to lower corporate taxes may or may not be fair (maybe it creates more jobs for lower-income people, who knows). Repealing it to increase the earned-income tax credit would almost certainly be fair. You'd be getting rid of a tax break that disproportionately benefits more privileged people, and expanding a tax break that disproportionately benefits less advantaged people.
  - tanderson92 9y ago
    > Repealing it to increase the earned-income tax credit would almost certainly be fair. False. The IRS states that the EITC only applies to those over age 25 if you do not have a qualifying child (many graduate students fail both). Also, some graduate students fail the most basic tests for EITC-eligibility since they do not have "earned income" despite having taxable income. Another thing is that the tuition being added to AGI means every single graduate student will be ineligible for the EITC just on AGI grounds. Anyway the plan uses it to fund corporate tax cuts so your hypotheticals don't really apply -- we have a concrete bill to discuss. See: https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-income-tax-credit/claiming-eitc-without-a-qualifying-child https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-in... https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-income-tax-credit/do-i-qualify-for-earned-income-tax-credit-eitc https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-in...
    - rayiner 9y ago
      The fact that graduate students may not be eligible for the EITC is irrelevant. The point is that the people who are eligible for the EITC are statistically much more likely to be underprivileged than graduate students are (as a group). As to the plan to use the tax break to fund corporate tax cuts, it depends on economic conclusions that are beyond my understanding. I tend to be of the mind that we shouldn't tax corporations at all, and focus on taxing individuals.
      - tanderson92 9y ago
        Since you acknowledge the increases in the EITC are unhelpful to these underprivileged students you are then saying it is acceptable to raise taxes on the underprivileged portion of a largely privileged group because it's statistically hard to tease out the difference. That's...heartless? Balancing it out in other members of the lower income class doesn't really help, IMO. You are penalizing people who are underprivileged for trying to improve their lot in life and move into a higher class with one of the best means possible: higher educational attainment. It's obscene. P.S. your point about taxation of corporations is interesting too: corporates shouldn't be considered people for purposes of taxation but can participate in political activity and speech (political donations) using rights of individuals. Nice deal, if you can get it.
        rayiner 9y ago
        > Since you acknowledge the increases in the EITC are unhelpful to these underprivileged students you are then saying it is acceptable to raise taxes on the underprivileged portion of a largely privileged group because it's statistically hard to tease out the difference. That's...heartless? No, it's utilitarianism. A tax break that disproportionately benefits the educated and well-off shouldn't be preserved just because a small minority of the people it benefits are not well off. Better to eliminate it in favor of a tax break that primarily goes to disadvantaged people. > You are penalizing people who are underprivileged for trying to improve their lot in life and move into a higher class with one of the best means possible: higher educational attainment. Someone who has gotten into graduate school necessarily has an undergraduate degree, and probably can make a decent living. At that point, it's better to focus government money on people who aren't so lucky. > corporates shouldn't be considered people for purposes of taxation but can participate in political activity and speech (political donations) using rights of individuals. The "people" thing is a red herring. "People" shouldn't lose their free speech rights just because they act in concert through a corporation. That has no bearing on whether "people" are more appropriately taxed at the corporate level or the individual one. The latter is a purely utilitarian concern. I don't think there is anything morally wrong with taxing corporations, I just think it's not worth the hassle given how easy it is for corporations to move to low-tax countries.
- hcknwscommenter 9y ago
  Here here. As a first in the family to attend college Ph.D. graduate, this tax bill seems terrible to me. Luckily, I finished my Ph.D. two decades ago. Thus, America continues its long decline by older generations pulling the ladder up against the youngers.