3 ms·

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 under

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.
- tanderson92 9y ago
  Okay, I think I understand your position now and I agree it's self-consistent, even though I disagree. Still, good luck to the US remaining a scientific leader with this change.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Is your logic here that major research universities would maintain the same fee structure and allow less qualified wealthy students to assume the spots lost by students who can't afford the tax change? Universities compete for research talent. Won't they simply adjust their fee and stipend structures to accommodate this change?
    - tanderson92 9y ago
      I assume stasis in the rest of the ecosystem, yes. It's hard to predict exactly what the repercussions would be. Yes, it's unrealistic. What else can we do? Also, the GOP wouldn't have repealed this exemption in the bill if it didn't mean increased tax revenue, so the money has to come from somewhere. In the end it's a reduction in funding for higher education. Universities compete with each other for research talent, but they also compete with private industry for graduating BS/BA students. If the amount of money flowing to higher education in general is reduced, it may be harder for graduate schools to compete for the best students against private industry, even though they continue to compete as best they can with each other.

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.

tanderson92 9y ago
Okay, I think I understand your position now and I agree it's self-consistent, even though I disagree. Still, good luck to the US remaining a scientific leader with this change.
- tptacek 9y ago
  Is your logic here that major research universities would maintain the same fee structure and allow less qualified wealthy students to assume the spots lost by students who can't afford the tax change? Universities compete for research talent. Won't they simply adjust their fee and stipend structures to accommodate this change?
  - tanderson92 9y ago
    I assume stasis in the rest of the ecosystem, yes. It's hard to predict exactly what the repercussions would be. Yes, it's unrealistic. What else can we do? Also, the GOP wouldn't have repealed this exemption in the bill if it didn't mean increased tax revenue, so the money has to come from somewhere. In the end it's a reduction in funding for higher education. Universities compete with each other for research talent, but they also compete with private industry for graduating BS/BA students. If the amount of money flowing to higher education in general is reduced, it may be harder for graduate schools to compete for the best students against private industry, even though they continue to compete as best they can with each other.