Taxing graduate tuition waivers

Isn't this the opposite of a stipend

Little too strong, bit too obvious. Maybe work on punctuation, seems way too overthought.

ITT: Entitled poor retards whine about not getting all of their gibs

my work here is done. hopefully some of the young anons lurking will become uncucked and avoid the path to debt slavery and anal bruising from the labor market

>never leave the walls of uni
Nigger I just saw a PhD student present a powerpoint about using partially coherent light to determine blood coagulation during open heart surgery and if you don't think that's tight as fuck you can suck my hard dick

Yeah b8 I know, eat shit

The same can be said for undegrad or even K-12 education. Why waste public money on young people sitting around not being productive for 18+ years? The answer: because education is an investment in the future.

Much better. Now it looks like you actually don't care. Good job!

If the investment isn't yielding a good return it's a poor investment and logical to stop that investment.

Grad students are a piss cheap investment. You can hire 10 GTA's for the price of one professor. And your school gets to publish papers and shit on the side.

Can't wait to be below the national poverty line thanks to taxing a technicality.

Guilty cocker spaniels eating table scraps, and when we rolled over how our masters clapped. Well it felt so good we wanted more of that, but when the program failed they defensively laughed.
"we did things just how you asked, don't try takin' us to task."
You didn't bite a face, no just a mask. So happy halloween.

Maybe it's time to reflect on the poor life choices that have brought you into your bad position and start making better decisions.

>graduate student tuition waivers will now be considered taxable income.

I'm interested in the logic here, what exactly is the end game to taxing graduate tuition waivers? Is there a benefit to such a move outside being a pure cash grab?

Wouldn't you want to place more incentive in Americans to investing in doctoral research? Or did Republicans finally give up and decided to let China overtake America in another field of interest?

That's less tax money that needs to come from corporations.

Grad students aren't exactly junkies who can't hold down a job at McDonalds. They put up with a low standard of living for a few years to get educated and be among the best in their fields.

>Wouldn't you want to place more incentive in Americans to investing in doctoral research?
Nope. Incentives should be result oriented, not pursuit oriented. PhDs don't mean shit for society when PhD holders aren't accomplishing things.

I'm dealing with probate bullshit. Each year they require you to submit a manifest of assets and income, and you must pay a filing fee to do so. In addition to 250 dollars up front to do anything, myriad transfer taxes for every conceivable asset in the estate.

Taxing the taxed tax tax tax. Then they screw you for payroll too, and make you wait a year to have disability while you're dying. Then they rape you out of all that social security they sucked out of you. Good ol' Teddy Roosevelt said his greatest achievement was "saving capitalism". All these programs at the time did come at a slight cost to the rich, sometimes you have to give a little so you won't lose it all, but at this point all these systems are just another mechanism to siphon money out of the upper middle class. Life support, deliberately. Where do people's welfare, food stamps, etc come from? The middle (lower) class. Where does it go? The very entities consolidating wealth to begin with.

It's all trash.

Do you not think PhDs contribute to society? Even if I grant you that PhDs in academia all sit around doing theoretical bullshit all day and don't contribute, still about half of PhDs (in physics anyway, not familiar with other fields) find work outside academia right out of grad school.

>Nope. Incentives should be result oriented, not pursuit oriented.
You liberal niggers need to kill yourselves. You can't tell the difference between (((profits))) and results.

Clinton-era "results oriented" regulations mutated NSF, DARPA, NIH into development outfits and have crippled American scientific research.

Did you know, millenial faggot, that by today's "results-oriented" standards, the Laser would never have been funded because it had no practical application at the time of its invention?

If I make $0/yr am I somehow going to pay tax for making $14,000?

Yep. You better, or else.

So give money to the half that do things that matter, and don't give money to the half that don't. Why should the bullshit people be paid at all?
Yeah let's all sit around and take taxpayer money to make worthless bullshit that might be useful in the future because of this cherry picked example of one time it was actually useful.

But given the population of PhD applicants is that really a significant enough sum of money to bother with? I could see the logic if you went after BA applicants since that is a significantly bigger pool to tax but this doesn't seem big enough to make it worth it.

>Incentives should be result oriented, not pursuit oriented.

For one to obtain "results" one must be required to pursue it first. If you do not give incentive to the pursuit then you will not receive results usually. Most humans work this way which is why money plays an important role especially in the American job market.

>PhDs don't mean shit for society when PhD holders aren't accomplishing things.

People pursuing PhDs by default are accomplishing things by contributing to a growing body of academic/practical research. You typically cannot work on a PhD without some form of thesis research or institutional residency to work for.

Now whether or not the thesis research or residency at hand derives high value to society is something else altogether. But that is typically a case by case issue.

Can we all just stop pretending the purpose is strictly financial? It obviously isn't.

Oh, I was being facetious. It's obvious that there's no fiscal reason to be doing this. Fuck, it's a stretch to even consider it income.

>Why waste public money on young people sitting around not being productive for 18+ years
I agree, modern K-12 schooling should become privatized since the public funded results have proven to be a wash. your kids are not learning math, science or how to write. instead they learn to categorize themselves into tribes based on their gender, skin color, sexual orientation, political affiliation, etc. and use these things as ways to claim victimhood status and gain access to other peoples' money and opportunities. then they participate in protests, throw feces and garbage cans through the windows of businesses run by working americans, and then use their tax money to write a 6-year dissertation about the experience

academia has a piss-poor track record of producing anything of value in recent times, that's why they will be rewarded less money. after all, if they did produce valuable things, people would want to pay for them. government grants for academia are an artificial life support system for a creature that could not survive without it

and now someone tell me how is this post related to science or mathematics?
go discuss that shit on /pol/

but that "one time" that it does turn out useful, it revolutionizes entire fields and makes the corporate masters (the ones you're presently shilling for) the trillions of shekels they crave. the mountains of "worthless bullshit that might be useful in the future" are the residue of true scientific research. if you're not willing to pay theoretical physicists to develop the models, and you're not willing to pay for failed experiments that ultimately went nowhere, you won't fucking get the laser.

it's ok. china will pick up where americucks left off. enjoy your "results."

>If you do not give incentive to the pursuit then you will not receive results usually
This is bullshit. The reward for the result is the incentive for the pursuit. Incentivizing the pursuit itself encourages never getting the result, because once you get the result you can't pursue it anymore, which means no more incentive.
>case by case issue.
So let the cases that aren't worth it go broke, and let the ones that make money make money.

Letting China pay for useless research that goes nowhere is fine with me. Having to go back 60 years to find something that justifies your paycheck is ridiculous. Start doing something useful.

If you earn money you have to pay taxes, sweety.

Are you already planning to leave?

the bulk of useful recent scientific advancement has not come from academia, it's been through companies with privately owned research labs. look at all the academic research that went into electric cars, which never went anywhere and was limp dick whimpy cuck shit. then elon musk came in with some american private sector muscle and a stiff dick, and now we have electric vehicles on the market that people will actually pay money for

If this actually goes through I might just say fuck it and leave grad school. I'm only a first year and I confident I can get a job in industry. Also grad school culture is really libcucked out now and its kind of annoying desu

That's fucking dope

As someone who is considering returning to University for postgraduate study, I'm very glad not to be an American

It's a waiver. I don't pay taxes on the second pizza I get with my buy-one-get-one-free-coupon.

Another thing to consider is that tuition wavers wouldn't need to exist if grad schools didn't charge grad students tuition and treated us as employees. Idk the logistics behind changing that but I think it shouldn't be too hard of a change to just hire PhD candidates as employees as that's essentially what they are anyway kind of like a post-doctoral position.

a waiver which is rewarded based on you teaching or doing research for the university, either way it's money someone had to pay for that's awarded to you regardless of mental gymnastics

>thousands more per year in taxes

How much do you think students get in tuition? Certainly not enough to need to pay thousands in taxes per year.

>modern K-12 schooling should become privatized

You didn't got to a private school?

A waiver which is pointless. It's just a way for the university to say "What do you mean you aren't being paid enough? We aren't making you pay the pointlessly high out of state graduate tuition! Be thankful!"

Another thing to consider is that tuition wavers wouldn't need to exist if grad schools didn't charge grad students tuition and instead treated us as employees. Idk the logistics behind changing that but I think it shouldn't be too hard of a change to just hire PhD candidates as employees as that's essentially what they are anyway kind of like a post-doctoral position.

>be Polish
>Polish taxpayer gave me a scholarship and paid for my BSc back in Poland in full
>EU taxpayer gave me a scholarship and paid for for my MSc in the UK in full
>PhD in UK funded in full via EU research grant
>mfw I got UK citizenship in April last year and voted Brexit two months later

Bingo. “Tax him not me!”

Accidentally double posted my bad senpai

Anyone know if it is taxed in countries in Europe? Like UK, Germany, Switzerland, etc...?

It's not taxed in the UK.

who shit you /pol/tards are the most pathetic people ever . When trump lowers taxes on rich people you praise him and suck his dick but when highers taxes on us middle class students who are suffering you also suck his dick. Men fuck you university education should be fucking free instead of getting taxed on waivers. because of people like you rich chinks are beating us in our universities.

They could also just lower the tuition or declare it as $0 for all PhD students in X department. Or they could just pay students the extra 2-3 grand it will cost in taxes. I don't think anyone can seriously claim that universities are struggling to pay for grad students in 90% of institutions, and they don't have the option of putting the debt on the backs of the students.

Of course, it's a silly thing to tax at the full rate. The university hands you money that you're forced to hand right back. If I pass a $100 bill between myself and a friend 1,000 times, does that mean that I need to pay taxes on a $100,000 income? At a reduced rate, I wouldn't mind because an education does have a monetary value.

That being said, it's a preliminary bill. Just write to congressmen if you're concerned. Neither party has any interest in impeding US STEM education. At the very least, we can get it reinstated for US citizens and let all of the pajeets and chinks suffer.

University SHOULD NOT be free. I agree that due to loans tuition has gotten out of control and getting taxed on waivers are BS but making it completely free is moronic.

why it should be free so only the good students can make it to uni and not the richest one for the example if MIT wants 1000 freshman , they will just look at the top 1000 gpa's and sat scores sent to them and choose those students. The student will ofc choose the best uni that admitted him instead of choosing the cheapest uni or the uni that is gonna offer some fat scholarship which are very unfair.

Yes but how would you pay the faculty to teach? Or pay the cost to maintain the facilities or house the students. The government can't fund all of that unless we really ramp up taxes

Why not try taxing those who can afford to make their country a better place?

Ahh you know that other goverments do that.
First off all we have to slash all that money going to the retarded college athletics . Colleges are for studying and not tackling and apehooping. yeah sure it's ok to have some college sports but not in the crazy american war
2nd , slash military budget and financial aid
3rd , make american universities super expensive for non americans and almost free for americans especially when in-state

american way*

my side's
fucking pollack

oh btw colleges being free will make things much fairer. College admission policies are not scientific and are really shady . When things become free and scholarships become just a bonus, colleges should start having a price formula. for example the admission score for college x will be your gpa*4 + sat*2 + subject sat*1 . So if college x wants 500 engineering students . The 500th guy with a score 27.1/28 will make but the guy with the 27.05/28 won't make it and it would be totally fair.

Lol

How do you distribute funding? Will the government be the arbitrator of which schools get enough money to be "good" or "bad," and can this be used to target certain states?

What do you do when the US college system turns into the US high-school system where standards are universally lowered so black people can pass? Why are you delusional enough to think that a policy enacted based purely on a sense of entitlement will do anything other than turning into a degree mill for the people that voted for it?

With how expensive college is do you honestly think that we can tax people enough to pay for it without people losing more than 50% of their income

gpa isn't a fair measure. There are private schools with so much extra credit for in class activities you have to actively try to not get a 4.0, and on the flip side, there's classes where it's actually impossible to get a 4.0 because the teacher made a mistake with their grading system.

no it won't
by university rankings
>hat do you do when the US college system turns into the US high-school system where standards are universally lowered so black people can pass?
they won't because black people would barely make it when things become free and based on performance.
M8 , i am not talking about an imaginary system . German universities are free and they are fine.
still more fair than money and retarded scholarships like scholarships for latino gay women with east african and north indian ancestry. and we can fix by having a national exam every semester or every year so all schools and students take similar curriculums and exams.

It's a pasta

>German universities are free and they are fine.

Germany is 89% white. The U.S. is 56%.

Not an argument

I am okay with cutting sports and making college a lot cheaper. However from a fundamental standpoint I don't like the idea of using tax dollars to subsidize education at the undergraduate level. Its already getting out of hand right now with loans going through the roof.Especially due to the fact that colleges are private institutions and can change tuition on a dime to suit their needs. At graduate level it should be allowed only if the student apply s for a fellowship when doing research pertinent to the interest of the state or a private organization

I wouldn't mind state unis being free provided that everyone understands that only smart people with good ACT/SAT scores are going to get to go for free. Not everyone needs to go to college.

I've posted it before but it's the truth.

I mean isn't that essentially what we have now with scholarship programs

Holy shit dude

That's the issue. They won't make it through, they'll scream racism, and standards will drop into the shitter across the US.

University rankings are a pretty fickle metric.

newfag...

I don't understand the animosity here. What programs are deriving so much hatred?

>Clinton-era "results oriented" regulations mutated NSF, DARPA, NIH into development outfits and have crippled American scientific research.

Go on. What do you mean by development outfits

Why not look to other countries where it's the norm? How do they raise enough revenue to do it? And how do people cope with the taxes there?

>A pizza which is rewarded based on you buying another pizza from the restaurant, either way it's a pizza someone had to bake that's awarded to you regardless of mental gymnastics

I still don't it. I already paid for the first pizza.

If you go to a public uni or receive government grants which 'waive' the pizza for you, then it's still someone else paying for it that isn't you and never asked for you to get a pizza to begin with

except I'm not a trump supporter, I just want academicians to pay taxes on money they earn just like everyone else. the rich may have their taxes lowered, but they still have to pay more than literally zero dollars

also: why don't the grad students just ask their advisors to pay out of pocket for whatever the taxes cost? after all if their lab's work is truly of value, then paying their own researchers should be justified.

spoiler: they won't because even they don't wanna pay for that bullshit, but it's ok if everyone else pays for it

ITT: mad brainlets who couldn't get into grad school frogpost their insecurities until taxing people who don't make money is somehow justified when Jewry mckikester from apple can pay .0005 % on his gazillions he stores in apple

Fuck off retards this board is for actual scientists, aka PhD

rly makes me appreciate not being a retarded american

I'm here, I just checked on something that I apparently overlooked earlier this year.

military.com/daily-news/2017/04/24/house-backing-away-proposal-tax-gi-bill.html

Now I'm starting to understand the logic behind this proposal on taxing tuition waviers. Congress wanted to originally go after G.I. bill recipents by taxing their school assistance. The military pushed back and they backed off. Now they're going after a softer target with less resistance that being civilian grads.

It all makes sense now, at first I was trying to wrap my brain around the issue some more since I also realized this proposal of taxing waviers could be argued as a violation of the yellow ribbon program (civilian institution and military joint tuition waiver) but now I see the logic (a bit underhanded though).

Nobody needs to be paying tuition as a PhD student. It's a farce.

>he fell for the PhD meme
>he took out school loans

Way to out yourself as not knowing anything about PhDs.

Why, so we can convert the US to a socialist nation? The demographics are nowhere near homogenous enough to even think about such a thing. The only reason Scandinavian countries (the only countries I can assume you're referring to where low cost or free uni is the norm) has low costs for university is due to obscenely high tax rates and a relatively homogenous society. US has a low tax rate and a heterogeneous society, neither of which are conducive to subsidizing college for everyone who wants to attend.

My undergraduate scholarship was taxable income worth close to $50,000 a year and I paid a few thousand in taxes on it every year.

Chinese research results in Chinese patents that western companies will have to pay for to license. Huawei and ZTE are not among the top 10 PCT patent application filers.

Useless? I don't think so.

this

>Why waste public money on young people sitting around not being productive for 18+ years? The answer: because education is an investment in the future.
What the fuck am I reading?

It's justified solely by your butthurt post. And no one envies the cuck life of a grad student that goes without saying.

>The only reason Scandinavian countries (the only countries I can assume you're referring to where low cost or free uni is the norm) has low costs for university is due to obscenely high tax rates
I think their tax rates are pretty comparable to, say, California.

>and a relatively homogenous society.
Nonsense. There are many societal problems that increase or decrease with societal homogeneity, but subsidized education is not one of them.

The reason the Scandinavian countries can subsidize their education is that, by virtue of having relatively limited government corruption, their education is *cheap*, making systems that give it away quite feasible. The reason it could not easily work in the US is that the level of government is so high that (among many other things) college costs have gone through the roof.