5 ms·

> In reality, they should "award" grad students $0 in tuition and pay them like what they are - employees (and deeply exploited employees at that!). Here's the

> In reality, they should "award" grad students $0 in tuition and pay them like what they are - employees (and deeply exploited employees at that!). Here's the rub. If universities do this, then the current tax bill is basically a cut to federal funding for science and undergraduate education. If universities do not do this, then the current tax bill places even more of the social cost of science onto graduate students. IMO the way out of the quagmire is two-fold. (1) Place a strict limit of 20% on overhead -- the sum of all expenses that aren't either researcher/educator salary or research/teaching equipment should not exceed 20% within certain revenue streams. This should be required for revenues from undergraduate tuition, non-taxed endowment earnings that aren't reinvested into the endowment, and revenues from research grants. (Why not $0? Because some amount of administration is necessary, and buildings need to be cleaned/maintained/secured. "Overhead" can mean waste, but it can also mean "literally keeping the lights on". 20% is negotiable, and perhaps this is something that varies from campus to campus, but "a lowish non-zero number" seems right.) (2) Only after doing (1), increase funding for science and public higher education.

ameister14 9y ago
>If universities do this, then the current tax bill is basically a cut to federal funding for science and undergraduate education. It isn't, though. If there is 100 million allocated by the federal government for science and undergraduate education, that number gets spent whether or not universities charge tuition. It just gets distributed differently, it isn't cut.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  5 - 2 is smaller than 5 - 0...
  - ameister14 9y ago
    So you think nobody will apply for the grants, period?
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      No, how did you infer that from my post? They'll get a $5 grant and then pay $2 back in taxes.
      - ameister14 9y ago
        The universities aren't being taxed on their Federal grants, are they? I thought this whole thing was about how Graduate students were reimbursed - if that's the case, there are solutions that don't involve a 40% tax rate, which nobody would pay anyway. Plus, if they simply paid the graduate students more, then sure - the students would pay income tax, but again, not 40%, and the student would have more choice about how to use their income. I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for a system that is built off of bleeding funding from grants to support other university programs. Sure, more might go back to the government in the form of a tax, but that's more reasonable to me than the university taxing the government for the privilege of paying them to do research.
        throwawayjava 9y ago
        > Sure, more might go back to the government in the form of a tax Right, so we agree that this effectively reduces the amount of money the USFG spends on research; 5-2 < 5-0. > but that's more reasonable to me than the university taxing the government for the privilege of paying them to do research. We can debate about the extent to which the federal government should support education and research, but let's stop bullshitting for one damn second. Removing tax incentives for government-funded research is exactly equivalent to reducing NSF/NIH funding. This is literally a basic arithmetic fact.
        ameister14 9y ago
        >Right, so we agree that this effectively reduces the amount of money the USFG spends on research; 5-2 < 5-0. No, we don't. If the funding actually went to research, maybe, but it doesn't, and even then it's pretty convoluted. In any other program, if I get a grant from the government and use it to pay staff, they pay income tax on what I pay them, even though the money comes from a grant. That doesn't really mean the government spends less to fund grant programs. >Removing tax incentives for government-funded research is exactly equivalent to reducing NSF/NIH funding. No, it isn't. It's related, but not exactly equivalent. The money still goes to fund NSF/NIH projects, even if there is tax on that income the people were paid to do the research.

ameister14 9y ago

>If universities do this, then the current tax bill is basically a cut to federal funding for science and undergraduate education. It isn't, though. If there is 100 million allocated by the federal government for science and undergraduate education, that number gets spent whether or not universities charge tuition. It just gets distributed differently, it isn't cut.

throwawayjava 9y ago
5 - 2 is smaller than 5 - 0...
- ameister14 9y ago
  So you think nobody will apply for the grants, period?
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    No, how did you infer that from my post? They'll get a $5 grant and then pay $2 back in taxes.
    - ameister14 9y ago
      The universities aren't being taxed on their Federal grants, are they? I thought this whole thing was about how Graduate students were reimbursed - if that's the case, there are solutions that don't involve a 40% tax rate, which nobody would pay anyway. Plus, if they simply paid the graduate students more, then sure - the students would pay income tax, but again, not 40%, and the student would have more choice about how to use their income. I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for a system that is built off of bleeding funding from grants to support other university programs. Sure, more might go back to the government in the form of a tax, but that's more reasonable to me than the university taxing the government for the privilege of paying them to do research.
      - throwawayjava 9y ago
        > Sure, more might go back to the government in the form of a tax Right, so we agree that this effectively reduces the amount of money the USFG spends on research; 5-2 < 5-0. > but that's more reasonable to me than the university taxing the government for the privilege of paying them to do research. We can debate about the extent to which the federal government should support education and research, but let's stop bullshitting for one damn second. Removing tax incentives for government-funded research is exactly equivalent to reducing NSF/NIH funding. This is literally a basic arithmetic fact.
        ameister14 9y ago
        >Right, so we agree that this effectively reduces the amount of money the USFG spends on research; 5-2 < 5-0. No, we don't. If the funding actually went to research, maybe, but it doesn't, and even then it's pretty convoluted. In any other program, if I get a grant from the government and use it to pay staff, they pay income tax on what I pay them, even though the money comes from a grant. That doesn't really mean the government spends less to fund grant programs. >Removing tax incentives for government-funded research is exactly equivalent to reducing NSF/NIH funding. No, it isn't. It's related, but not exactly equivalent. The money still goes to fund NSF/NIH projects, even if there is tax on that income the people were paid to do the research.