6 ms·

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 a

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...
- Nrsolis 9y ago
  If you don't think earning a PhD substantially improves your material existence, I'd beg to differ. There are plenty of folks who don't have PhD's who would be better positioned in the job market if they had the talent and opportunity to earn one. For every student lucky enough to earn a spot doing research there are plenty that don't have the opportunity and have to go out into the real world and earn a living. I meet plenty of PhD's in my regular practice. Not every person earns a PhD and stays in academia. PLENTY earn that degree and use it as a stepping stone to a high-paying job in the private sector. As for oil executives: they're not going to be the biggest winners here. Shareholders likely will be. That repatriated capital is going to lead to a huge share buyback and dividends. Wanna know who's going to get a large chunk of that? PENSION FUNDS for state employees. If you think CALPERS doesn't stand to benefit from this surging stock market you're not paying attention. I wonder if you realize how much you sound like a lobbyist? Without a tax subsidy, there is a calamity. Every time someone warns that a tax increase will affect investment or job creation or cause a shift in the deployment of capital, people in favor of said increase downplay those fears. All the folks who said that a $15 minimum wage would kill job creation....were those folks wrong? And here we are, hearing that the removal of a special tax treatment will massively impact graduate education. Well, maybe. Maybe not. I guess we will have to see. So the cost to a student to receive a PhD goes up a bit. Big deal. Is that gonna kill research entirely? There is already a glut of PhDs here in the USA. Maybe a few less isn't such a bad thing.
lmeyerov 9y ago
It's hard to be this wrong. This phrasing seems either malicious, incredibly ignorant, or astroturfing because it completely inverts how the heart of American R&D labor gets paid for. The reasoning ignores who actually does R&D work. Graduate students aren't your drinking buddy snoozing in lectures about tax codes or sitting around being spoonfed secrets to higher salaries. Instead, they are actively providing the primary labor force driving advanced R&D in America. Professors play a role.. but more akin to management and leadership. I am not exaggerating -- most R&D papers are the result of 2-4 graduate students doing most of the direct details work, and the professors as the last 1-2 authors who secured the grant, run the weekly meetings, and a few other things. Given an environment where core R&D is already underpaid.. it's bizarre to see someone advocating further reductions in compensation. And phrased so carefully as "decreases in subsidies"... bravo! It's disappointing that I can see this being just as easily being Russian trolling or the result of years of well-funded _American_ think tanks who are clearly not working for the public's interest. So when I read writing from people like the above, I have to agree with Scott Aaronson. Both corporations and the federal government have been gutting R&D in America for awhile now, and it's pretty clear mainstream Republicans are running the show for both sides on this one.

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...

Nrsolis 9y ago
If you don't think earning a PhD substantially improves your material existence, I'd beg to differ. There are plenty of folks who don't have PhD's who would be better positioned in the job market if they had the talent and opportunity to earn one. For every student lucky enough to earn a spot doing research there are plenty that don't have the opportunity and have to go out into the real world and earn a living. I meet plenty of PhD's in my regular practice. Not every person earns a PhD and stays in academia. PLENTY earn that degree and use it as a stepping stone to a high-paying job in the private sector. As for oil executives: they're not going to be the biggest winners here. Shareholders likely will be. That repatriated capital is going to lead to a huge share buyback and dividends. Wanna know who's going to get a large chunk of that? PENSION FUNDS for state employees. If you think CALPERS doesn't stand to benefit from this surging stock market you're not paying attention. I wonder if you realize how much you sound like a lobbyist? Without a tax subsidy, there is a calamity. Every time someone warns that a tax increase will affect investment or job creation or cause a shift in the deployment of capital, people in favor of said increase downplay those fears. All the folks who said that a $15 minimum wage would kill job creation....were those folks wrong? And here we are, hearing that the removal of a special tax treatment will massively impact graduate education. Well, maybe. Maybe not. I guess we will have to see. So the cost to a student to receive a PhD goes up a bit. Big deal. Is that gonna kill research entirely? There is already a glut of PhDs here in the USA. Maybe a few less isn't such a bad thing.

lmeyerov 9y ago

It's hard to be this wrong. This phrasing seems either malicious, incredibly ignorant, or astroturfing because it completely inverts how the heart of American R&D labor gets paid for. The reasoning ignores who actually does R&D work. Graduate students aren't your drinking buddy snoozing in lectures about tax codes or sitting around being spoonfed secrets to higher salaries. Instead, they are actively providing the primary labor force driving advanced R&D in America. Professors play a role.. but more akin to management and leadership. I am not exaggerating -- most R&D papers are the result of 2-4 graduate students doing most of the direct details work, and the professors as the last 1-2 authors who secured the grant, run the weekly meetings, and a few other things. Given an environment where core R&D is already underpaid.. it's bizarre to see someone advocating further reductions in compensation. And phrased so carefully as "decreases in subsidies"... bravo! It's disappointing that I can see this being just as easily being Russian trolling or the result of years of well-funded _American_ think tanks who are clearly not working for the public's interest. So when I read writing from people like the above, I have to agree with Scott Aaronson. Both corporations and the federal government have been gutting R&D in America for awhile now, and it's pretty clear mainstream Republicans are running the show for both sides on this one.