4 ms·
I fully side with the idea of taxing the benefit as income for a few reasons: 1. Tuition is overly inflated 2. The "tuition benefit" is really a waver. Having
by monksy 9y ago
I fully side with the idea of taxing the benefit as income for a few reasons:
1. Tuition is overly inflated
2. The "tuition benefit" is really a waver. Having a number there means that they can attempt to hardball you on compensation. (Really what you're working with is the stipend... but they claim you're getting this money + "$50000 tuition") It's pretty much the modern day equivilent of sharecropping.
- maxlybbert 9y agoI really have no idea what the system should look like. I am surprised that the tuition waivers aren’t already taxable. If you owe somebody money, and they forgive the debt, the amount forgiven is considered a taxable benefit. That’s especially true if the “somebody” you owed the money to was the IRS. I’m not saying all current grad students are tax cheats. I’m saying that I’m surprised the law is set up how it is, since in other cases, whenever the IRS sees a dollar value, it tries to collect a tax.
- throwawayjava 9y agoBecause that's the way the law is written. The law was written that way because at one point, we, as a society, decided that we value accessible education and thought that this was a good way to provide that access.
- s73ver_ 9y agoNeither of those justifies taxing a person making 30k as if they're making 80k.
- monksy 9y agoThey should be treated as a 30k worker and happen to be in the agreement that it's a valueless benefit. (PhD degrees are free)