4 ms·

It's still income even though it never hits your bank account. Other students who pay their own tuition don't have this luxury. I'm surprised graduate level stu

by jbob2000 9y ago

It's still income even though it never hits your bank account. Other students who pay their own tuition don't have this luxury. I'm surprised graduate level students at an Ivy league school can't figure this out, but then again, it's not in their interest.

kyleschiller 9y ago
Students who pay their own tuition (i.e. are not on financial aid) are almost by definition wealthy. That's why they don't have the "luxury" of lower taxes.
krastanov 9y ago
You are arguing semantics not substance. The complaint is that (1) there is an effective tax hike (2) that is used to cover tax cuts for already well-off demographic. Plenty of people would be fine with point 1 as long as the money is used to help to country / lower the deficit / pay national debt / invest in infrastructure. But people are unhappy with point 2 - the money is used to fund tax-cuts for the super rich.
- jbob2000 9y ago
  Well, arguably, the students were taking advantage of a loophole. They were receiving income and it wasn't being taxed, it's just that the letter of the law didn't consider this a form of income. They're still earning $10,000, it's still income, it's just coming off the paycheque before they receive it. But I do agree that this is the stupidest, pettiest loophole to close, especially because it's funding cuts of people who absolutely do not need them.
allenz 9y ago
Do you also believe that cancer survivors should be taxed $100k+ on their income from health insurance?
- klipt 9y ago
  Don't give the Republicans any ideas!
  - CWuestefeld 9y ago
    Partisan political sniping does not add any value to the conversation.
- jbob2000 9y ago
  Well no, because you paid tax when you paid your insurance. But some people would argue that health benefits should be taxed. We debated taxing employee benefits in Canada briefly. When an executive gets a $500k salary and $500k in benefits, should they be taxed as earning 1mil?
  - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
    In the United States, even the most basic medical insurance is an "employee benefit", even if in Canada it would be covered by the provincial system out of taxes.
- CWuestefeld 9y ago
  No. The definition of insurance is that it's only making you whole again after a loss. If my house burns down and the insurance company gives me $200K to rebuild it and replace the contents, was that income? Likewise, the health insurance money is making me whole after an analogous loss to my health.
eli_gottlieb 9y ago
>never hits your bank account That's basically the definition of "not income". If you "pay me" $5 and then "charge me" $5 for the privilege of being in the same room with you, you just moved money from your left hand to your right hand. It was your money the whole time, so I shouldn't owe any taxes on it. Specifically, the problem here is that, roughly, you would actually pay me $20, then move $40 from your left hand to your right, and then the government would charge me tax on $60. You're actually tripling my income-tax burden while increasing my real pay not a penny.

kyleschiller 9y ago

Students who pay their own tuition (i.e. are not on financial aid) are almost by definition wealthy. That's why they don't have the "luxury" of lower taxes.

krastanov 9y ago

You are arguing semantics not substance. The complaint is that (1) there is an effective tax hike (2) that is used to cover tax cuts for already well-off demographic. Plenty of people would be fine with point 1 as long as the money is used to help to country / lower the deficit / pay national debt / invest in infrastructure. But people are unhappy with point 2 - the money is used to fund tax-cuts for the super rich.

jbob2000 9y ago
Well, arguably, the students were taking advantage of a loophole. They were receiving income and it wasn't being taxed, it's just that the letter of the law didn't consider this a form of income. They're still earning $10,000, it's still income, it's just coming off the paycheque before they receive it. But I do agree that this is the stupidest, pettiest loophole to close, especially because it's funding cuts of people who absolutely do not need them.

allenz 9y ago

Do you also believe that cancer survivors should be taxed $100k+ on their income from health insurance?

klipt 9y ago
Don't give the Republicans any ideas!
- CWuestefeld 9y ago
  Partisan political sniping does not add any value to the conversation.
jbob2000 9y ago
Well no, because you paid tax when you paid your insurance. But some people would argue that health benefits should be taxed. We debated taxing employee benefits in Canada briefly. When an executive gets a $500k salary and $500k in benefits, should they be taxed as earning 1mil?
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  In the United States, even the most basic medical insurance is an "employee benefit", even if in Canada it would be covered by the provincial system out of taxes.
CWuestefeld 9y ago
No. The definition of insurance is that it's only making you whole again after a loss. If my house burns down and the insurance company gives me $200K to rebuild it and replace the contents, was that income? Likewise, the health insurance money is making me whole after an analogous loss to my health.

eli_gottlieb 9y ago

>never hits your bank account That's basically the definition of "not income". If you "pay me" $5 and then "charge me" $5 for the privilege of being in the same room with you, you just moved money from your left hand to your right hand. It was your money the whole time, so I shouldn't owe any taxes on it. Specifically, the problem here is that, roughly, you would actually pay me $20, then move $40 from your left hand to your right, and then the government would charge me tax on $60. You're actually tripling my income-tax burden while increasing my real pay not a penny.