hcknwscommenter

56 ms·

751.
by hcknwscommenter 9y ago
"but in the end those on the lower brackets will see nearly all their tax burden decreased and isn't that what we all keep saying we want, to help them up" Go read the CBO report. This is blatantly false. If you believe thi
752.
by hcknwscommenter 9y ago
"If your deductions are about $60K, then whether you feel like it or not, you are rich." You are confusing income with wealth. They are somewhat causally related to be sure, but totally different. Case in point: I started receivin
753.
by hcknwscommenter 9y ago
The CBO projects that those with income of greater than 1M a year get a tax cut.
754.
by hcknwscommenter 9y ago
"Why should workers in other states subsidize local taxes for higher cost of living areas through federal deducations" Because those workers do not in fact subsidize my local taxes. As a Californian, I subsidize those low tax sta
755.
by hcknwscommenter 9y ago
"That said, it's always been a little odd to me that we could deduct our mortgage interest and property taxes, but a renter cannot even though they're paying a good portion of that on our behalf." I'm not going to s
756.
by hcknwscommenter 9y ago
If owning real estate becomes more expensive, there is a very high likelihood that rents will increase rather than decrease.
757.
by hcknwscommenter 9y ago
A tax rise to ensure that the poor do not go hungry or that social security and medicare are funded is one thing. A tax rise designed solely to fund a lowering of the corporate tax rate and targeted at blue states? An entirely different t
758.
by hcknwscommenter 9y ago
"It seems like a transfer of power from the states to the federal government." Bingo, remember that the next time some politician tells you they are in favor of state's rights.
759.
by hcknwscommenter 9y ago
I agree with davexunit. Your analysis is flawed. First, you characterize state and local income and property tax deductions as "loop-holes." That's an interesting bit of logical acrobatics. In reality, the Senate bill har
760.
by hcknwscommenter 9y ago
Appalling? Now who is being sensationalist? What you are saying is that the school is going to bear the cost rather than the student. Probably. But then, the Ph.D. program just becomes much more expensive for the school to administer. A
761.
by hcknwscommenter 9y ago
Here here. As a first in the family to attend college Ph.D. graduate, this tax bill seems terrible to me. Luckily, I finished my Ph.D. two decades ago. Thus, America continues its long decline by older generations pulling the ladder up a
762.
by hcknwscommenter 9y ago
Waivers are generally provided in graduate programs where most of the students do not accrue education debt (e.g., STEM). Thus, for most graduate students affected by this, we are not talking about "more student loan debt" being
763.
by hcknwscommenter 9y ago
Except it will likely have the exact opposite effect. International students often (sometimes?) do not qualify for tuition waivers, or they qualify for a reduced amount of waiver. Therefore, the bill makes it more burdensome on domestic t
764.
by hcknwscommenter 9y ago
Bingo. I think you hit the nail on the head here. To offset the decrease in revenues expected from the upper quintiles (and the corporate tax), they need to raise revenues elsewhere. This is not a change that can be addressed by a simple
765.
by hcknwscommenter 9y ago
As a former Ph.D. student and now graduate, I would have to say the title is is not sensationalist at all. This aspect of the tax plan will raise additional funds (to at least partially offset the magnitude of the revenue reductions). Whe