6 ms·

Couldn't the universities just appropriately price the graduate school tuition instead of pretending it's worth tens of thousands of dollars a year and then giv

by blfr 9y ago

Couldn't the universities just appropriately price the graduate school tuition instead of pretending it's worth tens of thousands of dollars a year and then giving it away for free?

wsxcde 9y ago
The article responds to your argument. Might be a good idea to read it first.
- Overtonwindow 9y ago
  Hi, please don't insinuate someone has not read the article. This is against the rules. Please read the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- blfr 9y ago
  By appropriately I don't mean as a hack around this law or for grant money but according to the value delivered to the students. Then it would be fair for students to pay the tax just like it's presumably fair to pay undergrad tuition. Although it would probably have to be deferred somehow.
SeanLuke 9y ago
They don't give it away for free. It's typically paid by someone. For example, my graduate students are on NSF grants that I applied for. The grants pay the graduate students a stipend and health insurance costs, they pay my university the full cost of in-state tuition and fees, and they pay overhead on those costs. These are all budgeted for.
- Nrsolis 9y ago
  Then I think it's fair to ask if it's really OK to subsidize that compensation delivered in terms of valuable education. You can argue that graduate students and universities are just another special interest lobbying the government for a tax exemption that benefits them. There is nothing special about graduate education when you're conferring something that's inherently valuable (namely MS and PhD degrees) to a lucky few. You could further argue that it's unfair to ask blue-collar workers in fly-over states to pay higher taxes because of the impact of such a subsidy. There is a lot to like in the tax bill: interest on second homes isn't going to be subsidized nor are new mortgage interest on homes over $1M. Frankly, I think it should have been applied to ALL homes over $1M since many economists have argued vociferously that such an exemption is a huge subsidy to the high-cost states. I'd also like to see a revisitation of the taxation of carried-interest for hedge funds. There is no reason to consider performance bonuses as a return on capital if they don't have any basis in the investment/capital at risk. But arguing that graduate students (LUCKY graduate students) are worthy of some kind of exemption is just lobbying. You could easily make the same argument for active-duty armed service members. Frankly, I'd support a tax reduction on those people. They've suffered from our national follies to a disproportionate degree.
  - digitaltrees 9y ago
    Funding basic research to support the accumulation of knowledge and innovation is hardly special interest lobbying. A large part of the power of the US economy comes from having the strongest university system in the world and one that produces the greatest level of basic academic research and resulting commercialization in the world. This tax cut is solely focused on corporations and was fixated on hitting a 20% tax rate. The corporate tax rate could have been 22% or 28% with out the need to scrounge money every other place they could and yet still add 1 to 1.5 trillion to the national debt. No corporation is going to make investments because of this, there just going to horde it in the Cayman Islands or issue dividends then will also end up in the Cayman Islands. Funny how the repatriation of capital exemption wasn’t in this bill. So to your point. Both blue collar workers and grad students are now subsidizing corporate profits that will sit idle in foreign accounts.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    > LUCKY graduate students The overall tenor of your post is a bit disingenuous. The data tells us that getting a PhD does not substantially improve your material existence, or at least that the picture is murky. The data also tells us that the science that comes out of the research performed during those PhDs has an enormous positive ROI for society. So in other words, phd students are under-paid take a lifelong financial hit to provide large but diffuse benefits to society, benefits that most students won't be able to capture because, well, that's the nature of basic science.. > You can argue that graduate students and universities are just another special interest lobbying the government for a tax exemption that benefits them Since everything's a special interest, we might as well throw the money at oil executives? No, of course not. Some of those special interests really are worth investing in. Roads, schools, and labs provide enormous and measurable, if diffuse, value. > You could further argue that it's unfair to ask blue-collar workers in fly-over states to pay higher taxes because of the impact of such a subsidy. This bill will most harm the public and low-endowment universities in those flyover states. The schools those workers' children will attend will be less well-staffed and there will be fewer opportunities for funded graduate programs. > You could easily make the same argument for active-duty armed service members. Frankly, I'd support a tax reduction on those people Good news: they already receive very large tax exemptions. As they should; the armed services are also an important special interest...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mikeash 9y ago
Would that help the problems described in the comment I replied to?

by blfr 9y ago

Couldn't the universities just appropriately price the graduate school tuition instead of pretending it's worth tens of thousands of dollars a year and then giving it away for free?

wsxcde 9y ago

The article responds to your argument. Might be a good idea to read it first.

Overtonwindow 9y ago
Hi, please don't insinuate someone has not read the article. This is against the rules. Please read the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
blfr 9y ago
By appropriately I don't mean as a hack around this law or for grant money but according to the value delivered to the students. Then it would be fair for students to pay the tax just like it's presumably fair to pay undergrad tuition. Although it would probably have to be deferred somehow.

SeanLuke 9y ago

They don't give it away for free. It's typically paid by someone. For example, my graduate students are on NSF grants that I applied for. The grants pay the graduate students a stipend and health insurance costs, they pay my university the full cost of in-state tuition and fees, and they pay overhead on those costs. These are all budgeted for.

Nrsolis 9y ago
Then I think it's fair to ask if it's really OK to subsidize that compensation delivered in terms of valuable education. You can argue that graduate students and universities are just another special interest lobbying the government for a tax exemption that benefits them. There is nothing special about graduate education when you're conferring something that's inherently valuable (namely MS and PhD degrees) to a lucky few. You could further argue that it's unfair to ask blue-collar workers in fly-over states to pay higher taxes because of the impact of such a subsidy. There is a lot to like in the tax bill: interest on second homes isn't going to be subsidized nor are new mortgage interest on homes over $1M. Frankly, I think it should have been applied to ALL homes over $1M since many economists have argued vociferously that such an exemption is a huge subsidy to the high-cost states. I'd also like to see a revisitation of the taxation of carried-interest for hedge funds. There is no reason to consider performance bonuses as a return on capital if they don't have any basis in the investment/capital at risk. But arguing that graduate students (LUCKY graduate students) are worthy of some kind of exemption is just lobbying. You could easily make the same argument for active-duty armed service members. Frankly, I'd support a tax reduction on those people. They've suffered from our national follies to a disproportionate degree.
- digitaltrees 9y ago
  Funding basic research to support the accumulation of knowledge and innovation is hardly special interest lobbying. A large part of the power of the US economy comes from having the strongest university system in the world and one that produces the greatest level of basic academic research and resulting commercialization in the world. This tax cut is solely focused on corporations and was fixated on hitting a 20% tax rate. The corporate tax rate could have been 22% or 28% with out the need to scrounge money every other place they could and yet still add 1 to 1.5 trillion to the national debt. No corporation is going to make investments because of this, there just going to horde it in the Cayman Islands or issue dividends then will also end up in the Cayman Islands. Funny how the repatriation of capital exemption wasn’t in this bill. So to your point. Both blue collar workers and grad students are now subsidizing corporate profits that will sit idle in foreign accounts.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > LUCKY graduate students The overall tenor of your post is a bit disingenuous. The data tells us that getting a PhD does not substantially improve your material existence, or at least that the picture is murky. The data also tells us that the science that comes out of the research performed during those PhDs has an enormous positive ROI for society. So in other words, phd students are under-paid take a lifelong financial hit to provide large but diffuse benefits to society, benefits that most students won't be able to capture because, well, that's the nature of basic science.. > You can argue that graduate students and universities are just another special interest lobbying the government for a tax exemption that benefits them Since everything's a special interest, we might as well throw the money at oil executives? No, of course not. Some of those special interests really are worth investing in. Roads, schools, and labs provide enormous and measurable, if diffuse, value. > You could further argue that it's unfair to ask blue-collar workers in fly-over states to pay higher taxes because of the impact of such a subsidy. This bill will most harm the public and low-endowment universities in those flyover states. The schools those workers' children will attend will be less well-staffed and there will be fewer opportunities for funded graduate programs. > You could easily make the same argument for active-duty armed service members. Frankly, I'd support a tax reduction on those people Good news: they already receive very large tax exemptions. As they should; the armed services are also an important special interest...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mikeash 9y ago

Would that help the problems described in the comment I replied to?