Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Creepy Fixations

Topic: this 401(k) shit (Read 1336 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #50
Your kid to die well before turning 18 too and that's going to be tragic  :colbert:

Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #51
 :smith:

  • el jefe
  • asleep till 2020 or 2024
Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #52
not sure it would be less devastating to have to close out the account if the baby dies of SIDS or something

efb

  • ksen
Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #53
You guys make good points. Shitty things can happen at any point during a kid's life.

I rescind my last post.

  • meepmeep
  • Administrator
  • zombiecat queen
Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #54
Of course a child can die at any point before getting to college but the language used there would allow you to establish a beneficiary as soon as you find out you're pregnant. To me, there's a difference between having a 529 for a person who already exists in the world and then having to close it because they passed away and having a 529 for someone who hasn't been born and doesn't have a name or identity yet.

Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #55
admit it meep you thought that once a child is born they're invincible until college age

  • meepmeep
  • Administrator
  • zombiecat queen
Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #56
hey i went to a child's funeral a few years ago so

Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #57
You guys make good points. Shitty things can happen at any point during a kid's life.

Yeah. My sister has been playing that Despacito song for her newborn son.

Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #58
Are tax deductible medical expenses on the chopping block as well?

  • ksen
Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #59
yep

  • meepmeep
  • Administrator
  • zombiecat queen
Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #60
holy shit these bastards

http://www.chronicle.com/article/Republican-Tax-Proposal-Gets/241662

Quote
In broad terms, the bill would eliminate or consolidate a number of tax deductions meant to offset the costs of higher education for individuals and companies, including the Lifetime Learning Credit, which provides a tax deduction of up to $2,000 for tuition, a credit for student-loan interest, and a $5,250 corporate deduction for education-assistance plans.

The bill proposes new taxes on some private-college endowments and on compensation for the highest-paid employees at nonprofit organizations, including colleges and nonprofit academic hospitals. The plan would also tax the tuition waivers that many graduate students receive when they work as teaching assistants or researchers.

Perhaps most significant, the bill would result in many fewer people itemizing their deductions for charitable gifts. Higher-education experts warned that that change could lead to a steep decline in donations to colleges.

The article doesn't go into it but the part I bolded is a huge fucking problem. It would kneecap virtually every fucking PhD program. It would be a goddamn disaster.

Just as an example, at Chicago, my stipend was $20,000/yr. Tuition was well into the $40k range or more, if I remember correctly. I never had to worry about it because it was fucking waived, but if they had taxed me on that tuition waiver, the already paltry stipend wouldn't have been enough to cover my living expenses and the fucking taxes, and I would've had to take out loans. Which means I would've never gone in the first place.

Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #61
I do believe in terms of the GOP, that's a feature, not a bug. They don't want an educated populace, now they aren't even pretending anymore.

Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #62
holy shit these bastards

http://www.chronicle.com/article/Republican-Tax-Proposal-Gets/241662

Quote
In broad terms, the bill would eliminate or consolidate a number of tax deductions meant to offset the costs of higher education for individuals and companies, including the Lifetime Learning Credit, which provides a tax deduction of up to $2,000 for tuition, a credit for student-loan interest, and a $5,250 corporate deduction for education-assistance plans.

The bill proposes new taxes on some private-college endowments and on compensation for the highest-paid employees at nonprofit organizations, including colleges and nonprofit academic hospitals. The plan would also tax the tuition waivers that many graduate students receive when they work as teaching assistants or researchers.

Perhaps most significant, the bill would result in many fewer people itemizing their deductions for charitable gifts. Higher-education experts warned that that change could lead to a steep decline in donations to colleges.

The article doesn't go into it but the part I bolded is a huge fucking problem. It would kneecap virtually every fucking PhD program. It would be a goddamn disaster.

Just as an example, at Chicago, my stipend was $20,000/yr. Tuition was well into the $40k range or more, if I remember correctly. I never had to worry about it because it was fucking waived, but if they had taxed me on that tuition waiver, the already paltry stipend wouldn't have been enough to cover my living expenses and the fucking taxes, and I would've had to take out loans. Which means I would've never gone in the first place.
I'm guessing that most universities would take the burden on that.

That said, that still means that the university money doesn't go as far, which means fewer grad students.

Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #63
You guess? I don't. What I've seen repeatedly is that universities see tuition waivers as a burden and would like to be able to fundraise tuition from students if possible. What you could expect to see in this sort of situation is that state schools would essentially be unable to take out-of-state grad students because the tuition costs would be too high, and a lot of labs would be unable to take grad students on RAships. This would also eliminate most of the benefit of external funding sources like NSF-GRFP, which I'm sure the GOP would be happy to cut too. You would effectively halve the number of graduate degrees in the sciences more or less overnight, and restrict talented students from seeking graduate degrees in the lab which would be the best fit for them. As a result, the sciences would almost immediately have a lot less mobility between states and students in states like Michigan, California, Washington, Massachussetts, New York, etc would have a distinct edge on students from states like Georgia or North Dakota because they would be able to get in-state funding to attend top programs. University admins wouldn't care because this would not necessarily hurt their bottom line.

You want to dismantle US STEM performance in one big step, this bill will do it.

Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #64
I do believe in terms of the GOP, that's a feature, not a bug. They don't want an educated populace, now they aren't even pretending anymore.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/07/11/dramatic-shift-most-republicans-now-say-colleges-have-negative-impact

Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #65
I've said it before and I'll say it again: rural white people self-destructive pieces of shit who don't want to do the base minimum work to improve their situations and use their political power to actively destroy the social institutions that have been explicitly designed to help them.

  • meepmeep
  • Administrator
  • zombiecat queen
Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #66
You guess? I don't. What I've seen repeatedly is that universities see tuition waivers as a burden and would like to be able to fundraise tuition from students if possible. What you could expect to see in this sort of situation is that state schools would essentially be unable to take out-of-state grad students because the tuition costs would be too high, and a lot of labs would be unable to take grad students on RAships. This would also eliminate most of the benefit of external funding sources like NSF-GRFP, which I'm sure the GOP would be happy to cut too. You would effectively halve the number of graduate degrees in the sciences more or less overnight, and restrict talented students from seeking graduate degrees in the lab which would be the best fit for them. As a result, the sciences would almost immediately have a lot less mobility between states and students in states like Michigan, California, Washington, Massachussetts, New York, etc would have a distinct edge on students from states like Georgia or North Dakota because they would be able to get in-state funding to attend top programs. University admins wouldn't care because this would not necessarily hurt their bottom line.

You want to dismantle US STEM performance in one big step, this bill will do it.

Yeah, schools can't really take on the burden. State schools may be unable to cut tuition/charge different rates for different kinds of students, and you can't exactly compensate for the tax on tens of thousands of "income" from the tuition stipend/waiver through increased pay for TAs/assistants. There simply isn't enough money, and with grants getting more and more competitive each year and funding getting cut more and more, it's only going to get worse.

It's worse in the humanities. A few years ago, even, not all of the graduate students were fully funded for their entire time. Getting students a stipend often involved cobbling together a bunch of different funding sources and trying to reach a certain amount. Sometimes the money simply ran out, and we could only give so much to a particular student. Throwing a fucking tuition waiver/remission tax on top of that would've meant these students would have nothing left.

Getting a PhD is already a financially risky proposition. This would make it infinitely worse and lead to an immediate loss of talent.

I mean, fuck, just looking at our joint VMD/PhD program. Students get tuition remission for both degrees. For the vet portion, that's $53k/yr for out-of-state students for 4 years. The PhD program is $36k/yr for at least 4 years, assuming all goes well with your dissertation. Although the set-up is pretty generous to students, the program is extremely competitive, and on average only 2 students are chosen per year. If they had to increase the stipend to account for the pretty significant amount of taxes these students would get, they'd have to reduce the number of students accepted into the program. To what, I don't know. Maybe 0.5-1.

Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #67
Yeah, when I said "take the burden", I was saying they'd pay the tax, and cut many of the students to compensate.

Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #68
no offense, uncool, but this is another case where your incomplete understanding of the economics of the situation makes your conservative perspective completely retarded.

In many/most cases, grad students are not being paid by the university directly, and admission levels are not about what is economically feasible for the university and rather are about what funding is available in specific labs or departments. This is emphatically not like undergrad admissions. However, laws require that these students are charged tuition, despite the fact they generally do not take classes and instead do actual labor for the university, and these students are charged based on the same tuition schedule that undergrads get charged on. So if you're an out-of-state grad student, for example, in a STEM program at a state school, you're probably getting paid ~$20k takehome a year (give or take) and are being assessed $20-30k/year in tuition and fees. So you'll be getting taxed as if you're getting paid $50-60k a year but you're only getting paid $20k. Realistically, the schools don't give a shit and would be happy to see all their grad students take home $12k a year after taxes and rely on food banks and goodwill.

If you're in one of the high-demand fields like engineering, biomedical research, etc., then you're looking at a very real issue where PIs are paying students out of their grants. Adding that additional burden on PIs makes taking on a PhD student much more expensive and means that you probably need to cut ~30% of your lab size more or less overnight. given the fact that modern biomedical work requires large collaborative research environments with a lot of grad students all working on different aspects of the same problem, you end up with a situation where entire labs will likely have to close and will no longer be able to maintain the volume of research necessary to support additional research effort. This will also make labs that have international collaborations more competitive, because international collaborating labs can contract out that work without the same tax burden, either with PhD students or even with postdoctoral researchers. That means US research dollars will pay to train foreign students in foreign labs to produce IP that will become the basis for foreign-held companies, and not a cent will go back towards supporting the development of US research and teaching institutions.

This will devastate US capabilities in scientific research in a manner that universities have no control over.

Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #69
Hey tbm - I think you may have forgotten that I know just about all of that personally.

So yeah, my perspective might be retarded, but not because I haven't experienced it.

In any case: I think you might have misunderstood my position for something more expansive than it was. I substantially agree with you; I was taking the cynical view that universities have cut wages about as much as they can already - so any additional burden will come in the form of job cuts, not wage cuts, as I took meep to be implying (if you interpret this tax as effectively a wage cut).

  • el jefe
  • asleep till 2020 or 2024
Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #70
college is for suckers.  all they teach you is a bunch of politically correct bolesheeyit anyhow.  you wanna know how to get ahead?  learn to fix air conditioners.

  • meepmeep
  • Administrator
  • zombiecat queen
Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #71
In any case, at least we can agree that this would be devastating and would destabilize most departments that have PhD programs with a whole bunch of terrible effects for all other students.

It'd also affect university employees who get remission as a benefit and take advantage of it to take classes, but that's not going to fuck shit up as much as taxing full-time grad students.

Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #72
Hey tbm - I think you may have forgotten that I know just about all of that personally.

So yeah, my perspective might be retarded, but not because I haven't experienced it.

In any case: I think you might have misunderstood my position for something more expansive than it was. I substantially agree with you; I was taking the cynical view that universities have cut wages about as much as they can already - so any additional burden will come in the form of job cuts, not wage cuts, as I took meep to be implying (if you interpret this tax as effectively a wage cut).

Universities aren't going to make explicit decisions about numbers of grad students, though, and that's the point. They'll leave things the same. A lot of students from less stable financial backgrounds will either take out loans to continue to support themselves or will self-select out. Labs that fund students through external funding (NOT university funds!) will be forced to cut positions and farm aims out to external contractors. This is what will happen to a LOT of NIH money. Research will be done in Canadian or EMBL labs (or increasingly in China) and paid for out of NIH money. A few US PIs will benefit from this by being the US side of the contractor relationship, but US labs will increasingly be underfunded because they will not be able to compete with institutes that can afford to pay a decent wage to hire someone with greater mobility and therefore better lab fit.

It will obviously also hurt the humanities in some really nasty ways as well by excluding everyone who is not already economically privileged, but it is the sciences (and particularly biomedical research) where this is going to really hurt US institutions.

Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #73
A balanced budget implies no new debt spending. And part of the budget is paying interest and principal on current debt so eventually that debt, and all the T-Bills related to it, would go away.
I don't think that's right. It just means the new debt is being actually amortized. It makes sense to borrow for things that will last a long time. I don't think many economists would agree with you there. But, being as you are an accountant and I'm not, well...
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: this 401(k) shit
Reply #74
http://www.governing.com/topics/finance/gov-gop-republican-congress-trump-tax-reform-muni-market.html

In a surprise move, the Republican tax plan released on Thursday contains a proposal that finance experts say would be devastating for governments trying to find money for economic development projects.

The bill would eliminate all private activity bonds, which allow tax-exempt municipal bonds to be issued on behalf of a government for a project built and paid for by a private developer. Tax-exempt bonds fetch lower interest rates in the municipal market and therefore lower the overall cost of financing. The projects financed with this type of debt are typically things in the public interest, such as low-income housing, hospitals or airports.

The proposal caught the infrastructure finance community completely off-guard.

"It's been a big surprise to the entire public finance community," says Will Milford, a tax attorney at the firm Bryant Miller Olive. "For months, we've been hearing that munis were safe."

Milford added that targeting private activity bonds is especially confusing because those types of bonds are the "logical way" to stimulate private investment in infrastructure -- a hallmark of President Trump's campaign. In fact, during his confirmation hearing, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin suggested that private activity bonds could be expanded.

"It goes against everything we were hearing would be a focus," Milford says.

The federal government, though, would benefit from eliminating private activity bonds because it currently loses out on collecting tax revenue from the interest they earn for investors.

Many state and local government stakeholders are warning of dire consequences.

Oregon Treasurer Tobias Read said in a statement that the proposal would functionally eliminate the Oregon Facilities Authority. Over the past 27 years, $9 out of every $10 the authority has helped finance has gone toward either a health care or educational facility, according to the treasurer's office.

"All of these projects would need to be done with taxable, higher-interest-rate financing, which makes it far less likely for them to pencil out," says Laura Lockwood-McCall, the debt division director at the Oregon State Treasury.

The Council of Development Finance Agencies (CDFA) president, Toby Rittner, called the move "devastating" and said in a letter that eliminating private activity bonds "is bad policy [that] will cripple economic, infrastructure and community development."

The bonds have received criticism in the past, and a 2013 New York Times article called them a "stealth subsidy for private businesses" because they were used for things like a golf course and office buildings.

But government stakeholders argue they overwhelmingly help finance needed projects. New York City's housing department, for example, tweeted on Friday that the state's tax-exempt housing bonds helped finance affordable housing for nearly 170,000 people over four years.
 
The tax bill doesn't stop at eliminating private activity bonds. It would also nix other types of bonds valued by state and local governments.

Among the most concerning to local leaders, it would ban governments from issuing what are called advanced refunding bonds. These bonds allow governments to refinance debt earlier than they would have otherwise, ultimately letting governments take advantage of lower interest rates years sooner. The bill also bans issuing tax-exempt bonds for sports stadiums, a proposal that had already been floated this year on Capitol Hill.

It's unclear exactly how much of the municipal market would be affected by the change, but experts say it would be a significant portion. According to Municipal Market Analytics' Matt Fabian, up to 20 percent of the $3.7 trillion municipal market is made up of private activity bonds. Making those bonds taxable would dampen future issuance.

When it comes to the advanced refunding bonds, Fabian says between 10 and 20 percent of all annual bond refinancings fall under that category. That means up to one-tenth of the total $386 billion in average annual bond issuance could be attributed to that type of bond.

The notion of eliminating the tax-free status of all municipal bonds has been a perennial topic in Congress for years. But when the Republican framework for tax reform preserved that status, municipal bond market users thought they had emerged unscathed.

Now, stakeholders are left scratching their heads.

The lobbyist for the Government Finance Officers Association told the Bond Buyer that the proposal never surfaced in more than 90 meetings on the Hill. Meanwhile, the CDFA worked for weeks with Democrats in Congress to introduce a new type of disaster recovery bond to aid residents and municipalities in rebuilding. That bill, also introduced this week, would be rendered obsolete under the latest tax plan.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor