Arizona decisions....

JohnInCarolina · December 2017

fishlessman said:

HeavyG said:

pgprescott said:

StillH2OEgger said:

pgprescott said:
How many do you employ Capt.

Well, I've never shafted contractors or ripped people off through a real estate college scam, so I've got that going for me. How about we just tax everybody regardless of bracket, but close gaps on rates to create more fairness across the board?

I guess I could ask how many more people you will be hiring and reinvesting into your business as a result of all the tax breaks? Probably the same amount as everyone who will be paying at lesser rates under this plan, which is little to nothing.

This plan lowers the rates and closes the loopholes. Apparently what people really want is the lower rates and KEEP the loopholes (deductions). See, deductions ARE loopholes. Everyone wants someone else to pay the high taxes, just not them. The rates are lower across the board, except for the highest earners (no change) I believe. The reduced Corp rates will further spur the economy which has been strangled by reallysmart guys for 8-10 years Now. Unless you make a butt load of money, people don’t pay all that much really.

You're absolutely right (as always) the economy was just so strangled during the previous decade.

I'm old enough to remember when in 2001 "really smart people" were predicting that Dubyas tax cuts would essentially eliminate the federal debt by the year 2010.

I'm sure this time will be different.

its amazing how the stock market grew while wages flatlined during the previous decade

The effective flatlining of wages (when adjusted for inflation) goes back several decades. It's not just the last one.

JohnInCarolina · December 2017

It's interesting watching the two parties respond to the sexual assault business within their own ranks.

Conyers has resigned, and there are increasing calls for Franken to do the same. Personally I hope he does, because he should.

Meanwhile Blake Farenthold remains in good standing, and the RNC is sending money to Alabama to help Roy Moore get elected.

Fairly stark.

fishlessman · December 2017

JohnInCarolina said:

fishlessman said:

my deductions add up to claiming 5 and getting a refund while being single with no kids. the local income tax deduction going away and the property tax being limited to 10k hurts, living close to boston is a bad idea, friggin blue state

Well this bill in no small part hits blue states harder. That is part of the intent, to screw all of those "libtards".

The members of the congressional GOP from California just figured that out this morning, and man are they pissed.

it breaks down to $6.70 a week for me with this plan. its worth the price of admission just watching my libtard neighbors this last year

i suspect the mass income tax gets repealed soon, it was really close the last two times it was on the ballot

JohnInCarolina · December 2017

One of the things that's in the bill on the House side but not the Senate is a tax on... graduate student tuition waivers. Normally grad students, especially in the STEM fields, have their tuition waived. If this provision makes it through the conference, they'll be asked to pay taxes on money they never see. And it's a lot of money. Graduate tuition at MIT, for example, is north of 50k a year.

You know, because... we don't need any more stinking scientists or engineers in this country! Especially when we can just import them from other countries. Oh wait...

The stupidity is mind-numbing.

GrillSgt · December 2017

Some people used to pay to be trickled on, now we all will.

fishlessman · December 2017

JohnInCarolina said:

One of the things that's in the bill on the House side but not the Senate is a tax on... graduate student tuition waivers. Normally grad students, especially in the STEM fields, have their tuition waived. If this provision makes it through the conference, they'll be asked to pay taxes on money they never see. And it's a lot of money. Graduate tuition at MIT, for example, is north of 50k a year.

You know, because... we don't need any more stinking scientists or engineers in this country! Especially when we can just import them from other countries. Oh wait...

The stupidity is mind-numbing.

im getting my moneys worth

thankyou

Legume · December 2017

JohnInCarolina said:

One of the things that's in the bill on the House side but not the Senate is a tax on... graduate student tuition waivers. Normally grad students, especially in the STEM fields, have their tuition waived. If this provision makes it through the conference, they'll be asked to pay taxes on money they never see. And it's a lot of money. Graduate tuition at MIT, for example, is north of 50k a year.

You know, because... we don't need any more stinking scientists or engineers in this country! Especially when we can just import them from other countries. Oh wait...

The stupidity is mind-numbing.

John, who is paying for that tuition that gets forgiven, the university? Government grants? Corporate grants or contracts with the university? Asking because I don't know.

JohnInCarolina · December 2017

https://twitter.com/krassenstein/status/938382020912263168

Eoin · December 2017

fishlessman said:

JohnInCarolina said:

fishlessman said:

my deductions add up to claiming 5 and getting a refund while being single with no kids. the local income tax deduction going away and the property tax being limited to 10k hurts, living close to boston is a bad idea, friggin blue state

Well this bill in no small part hits blue states harder. That is part of the intent, to screw all of those "libtards".

The members of the congressional GOP from California just figured that out this morning, and man are they pissed.

it breaks down to $6.70 a week for me with this plan. its worth the price of admission just watching my libtard neighbors this last year i suspect the mass income tax gets repealed soon, it was really close the last two times it was on the ballot

I guess people will vote for the state budget to be reduced at the same time?

JohnInCarolina · December 2017

Legume said:

JohnInCarolina said:

One of the things that's in the bill on the House side but not the Senate is a tax on... graduate student tuition waivers. Normally grad students, especially in the STEM fields, have their tuition waived. If this provision makes it through the conference, they'll be asked to pay taxes on money they never see. And it's a lot of money. Graduate tuition at MIT, for example, is north of 50k a year.

You know, because... we don't need any more stinking scientists or engineers in this country! Especially when we can just import them from other countries. Oh wait...

The stupidity is mind-numbing.

John, who is paying for that tuition that gets forgiven, the university? Government grants? Corporate grants or contracts with the university? Asking because I don't know.

It really depends on the student and the institution, the nature of research, etc. It can be the university who picks up the tab, or the research grant supporting the student, external fellowships, and so forth. But typically even with research grants, they're only picking up a fraction of the tuition.

The point is that the students never see the money themselves. Most engineering students, for example, know that if they go to grad school they won't have to pay tuition. Now the expectation is that they'll have to pay a tax on that benefit, as though they had received the full amount of tuition as income. Assuming this makes it through conference (and I really hope cooler heads prevail), the net effect will simply be a decrease in the number of graduate students across the country. I don't see any way around it.

fishlessman · December 2017

Eoin said:

fishlessman said:

JohnInCarolina said:

fishlessman said:

my deductions add up to claiming 5 and getting a refund while being single with no kids. the local income tax deduction going away and the property tax being limited to 10k hurts, living close to boston is a bad idea, friggin blue state

Well this bill in no small part hits blue states harder. That is part of the intent, to screw all of those "libtards".

The members of the congressional GOP from California just figured that out this morning, and man are they pissed.

it breaks down to $6.70 a week for me with this plan. its worth the price of admission just watching my libtard neighbors this last year i suspect the mass income tax gets repealed soon, it was really close the last two times it was on the ballot

I guess people will vote for the state budget to be reduced at the same time?

would think they would just increase state property tax which is deductable on the fed plan. the state im originally from has no income tax or sales tax

pgprescott · December 2017

Legume said:

JohnInCarolina said:

One of the things that's in the bill on the House side but not the Senate is a tax on... graduate student tuition waivers. Normally grad students, especially in the STEM fields, have their tuition waived. If this provision makes it through the conference, they'll be asked to pay taxes on money they never see. And it's a lot of money. Graduate tuition at MIT, for example, is north of 50k a year.

You know, because... we don't need any more stinking scientists or engineers in this country! Especially when we can just import them from other countries. Oh wait...

The stupidity is mind-numbing.

John, who is paying for that tuition that gets forgiven, the university? Government grants? Corporate grants or contracts with the university? Asking because I don't know.

LOL!!! The Taxpayer or the Tuition payer will always pay. LOL!!!

lousubcap · December 2017

I would venture that the access to gubmint provided /backed $$ has been a big player in fueling the healthy rise in tuition over the past several decades.
Similar to the housing boom of the early 2000's. We know how that turned out...

Legume · December 2017

pgprescott said:

Legume said:

JohnInCarolina said:

One of the things that's in the bill on the House side but not the Senate is a tax on... graduate student tuition waivers. Normally grad students, especially in the STEM fields, have their tuition waived. If this provision makes it through the conference, they'll be asked to pay taxes on money they never see. And it's a lot of money. Graduate tuition at MIT, for example, is north of 50k a year.

You know, because... we don't need any more stinking scientists or engineers in this country! Especially when we can just import them from other countries. Oh wait...

The stupidity is mind-numbing.

John, who is paying for that tuition that gets forgiven, the university? Government grants? Corporate grants or contracts with the university? Asking because I don't know.

LOL!!! The Taxpayer or the Tuition payer will always pay. LOL!!!

Didn't realize I said something funny, also don't understand your comment. 'Splain please.

fishlessman · December 2017

lousubcap said:

I would venture that the access to gubmint provided /backed $$ has been a big player in fueling the healthy rise in tuition over the past several decades.
Similar to the housing boom of the early 2000's. We know how that turned out...

in the 80's a nuclear engineering degree was about 750.00 a semester, then the loans came and ruined it all. it cost more to train a dog back then

JohnInCarolina · December 2017

lousubcap said:

I would venture that the access to gubmint provided /backed $$ has been a big player in fueling the healthy rise in tuition over the past several decades.
Similar to the housing boom of the early 2000's. We know how that turned out...

There is certainly an element of this to undergraduate tuition, that is true. But graduate tuition (in STEM at least) is a completely different animal. Government grants are typically only paying a fraction of graduate tuition. Most of the student money on a government grant is going to pay the student's research stipend and fringe benefits.

Outside of STEM fields, there's not a whole lot of government research money going towards graduate student tuition. STEM is far and away the biggest driver, perhaps for obvious reasons.

I come from a fairly modest background. I went to college on a full-ride, merit based scholarship. My parents could not afford to send me anywhere else really. In grad school my tuition was waived and I received a stipend of around $1300 a month (before I was a DOE fellow) that I had to pay taxes on. My rent at the time was $450 a month. There wasn't much left for anything else. I lived paycheck to paycheck and ate a lot of ramen pride. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining - I had the luxury of being paid to go to school and to do reserch and I loved it.

If I'd had to pay taxes on the tuition that was waived at the time - around an additional $30k a year, I just wouldn't have been able to afford to go to graduate school. I think if we're moving towards a system where only the wealthy can afford to pursue advanced degrees, even in STEM fields where there's a national shortage... we're doing something very wrong as a country.

pgprescott · December 2017

Legume said:

pgprescott said:

Legume said:

JohnInCarolina said:

One of the things that's in the bill on the House side but not the Senate is a tax on... graduate student tuition waivers. Normally grad students, especially in the STEM fields, have their tuition waived. If this provision makes it through the conference, they'll be asked to pay taxes on money they never see. And it's a lot of money. Graduate tuition at MIT, for example, is north of 50k a year.

You know, because... we don't need any more stinking scientists or engineers in this country! Especially when we can just import them from other countries. Oh wait...

The stupidity is mind-numbing.

John, who is paying for that tuition that gets forgiven, the university? Government grants? Corporate grants or contracts with the university? Asking because I don't know.

LOL!!! The Taxpayer or the Tuition payer will always pay. LOL!!!

Didn't realize I said something funny, also don't understand your comment. 'Splain please.

There is no such thing as free shi*. No matter what, the cost is passed on to either the taxpayer or the persons paying tuition. Period! Quite obvious and quite simple.

It it is hilarious to think the government pays for anything. They don’t make money. They only spend what they take from the taxpayer(and then some). It’s also funny to think about the university sitting around and paying for anything. They just pass the cost on to the paying consumer. You think all the staff fills a candy jar with $100 bills to pay others tuition? It’s laughable. They might make it look that way in order to garner faux positive attention, but it’s faux.

pgprescott · December 2017

lousubcap said:

I would venture that the access to gubmint provided /backed $$ has been a big player in fueling the healthy rise in tuition over the past several decades.
Similar to the housing boom of the early 2000's. We know how that turned out...

yeah, it’s real hard to figure out that if the Government artificially increases demand for education and degrees that the prices could exceed the benefit. Hard to figure why tuitions increase so much. LOL! I like to call it BIG EDUCATION! Like big oil and big tobacco, it is just scary and evil. Immoral maybe!

fishlessman · December 2017

JohnInCarolina said:

lousubcap said:

I would venture that the access to gubmint provided /backed $$ has been a big player in fueling the healthy rise in tuition over the past several decades.
Similar to the housing boom of the early 2000's. We know how that turned out...

There is certainly an element of this to undergraduate tuition, that is true. But graduate tuition (in STEM at least) is a completely different animal. Government grants are typically only paying a fraction of graduate tuition. Most of the student money on a government grant is going to pay the student's research stipend and fringe benefits.

Outside of STEM fields, there's not a whole lot of government research money going towards graduate student tuition. STEM is far and away the biggest driver, perhaps for obvious reasons.

I come from a fairly modest background. I went to college on a full-ride, merit based scholarship. My parents could not afford to send me anywhere else really. In grad school my tuition was waived and I received a stipend of around $1300 a month (before I was a DOE fellow) that I had to pay taxes on. My rent at the time was $450 a month. There wasn't much left for anything else. I lived paycheck to paycheck and ate a lot of ramen pride. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining - I had the luxury of being paid to go to school and to do reserch and I loved it.

If I'd had to pay taxes on the tuition that was waived at the time - around an additional $30k a year, I just wouldn't have been able to afford to go to graduate school. I think if we're moving towards a system where only the wealthy can afford to pursue advanced degrees, even in STEM fields where there's a national shortage... we're doing something very wrong as a country.

friend of mine got dupont to fund it all. the govt needs to find a way to get industry to pick up this tab. when did this actually start with the govt paying for the stem guys.

JohnInCarolina · December 2017

fishlessman said:

JohnInCarolina said:

lousubcap said:

I would venture that the access to gubmint provided /backed $$ has been a big player in fueling the healthy rise in tuition over the past several decades.
Similar to the housing boom of the early 2000's. We know how that turned out...

There is certainly an element of this to undergraduate tuition, that is true. But graduate tuition (in STEM at least) is a completely different animal. Government grants are typically only paying a fraction of graduate tuition. Most of the student money on a government grant is going to pay the student's research stipend and fringe benefits.

Outside of STEM fields, there's not a whole lot of government research money going towards graduate student tuition. STEM is far and away the biggest driver, perhaps for obvious reasons.

I come from a fairly modest background. I went to college on a full-ride, merit based scholarship. My parents could not afford to send me anywhere else really. In grad school my tuition was waived and I received a stipend of around $1300 a month (before I was a DOE fellow) that I had to pay taxes on. My rent at the time was $450 a month. There wasn't much left for anything else. I lived paycheck to paycheck and ate a lot of ramen pride. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining - I had the luxury of being paid to go to school and to do reserch and I loved it.

If I'd had to pay taxes on the tuition that was waived at the time - around an additional $30k a year, I just wouldn't have been able to afford to go to graduate school. I think if we're moving towards a system where only the wealthy can afford to pursue advanced degrees, even in STEM fields where there's a national shortage... we're doing something very wrong as a country.

friend of mine got dupont to fund it all. the govt needs to find a way to get industry to pick up this tab. when did this actually start with the govt paying for the stem guys.

Probably sometime around the Manhattan project. There wasn't a whole lot of industry demand for nuclear weapons. I can't imagine why...

Industry will typically pay for their employees to get masters degrees. Some will pay for a PhD, but that's unusual. Typically the turnaround time on a PhD is too long for most industries to commit to.

Industry generally isn't all that interested in funding fundamental science research. They often use the results of the work extensively, but they're not interested in paying for it themselves.

nolaegghead · December 2017

So...an FJ Cruiser or a Wrangler?

dmchicago · December 2017

@nolaegghead

Keeping threads on topic since....3:46 PM 12/06/17.

bud812 · December 2017

I'd go with the FJ Cruiser as the Jeep is junk. imo

bgebrent · December 2017

I can take care of your Cayman. You wouldn't iwant it out there in that harsh environment.

JohnInCarolina · December 2017

thetrim · December 2017

For @nolaegghead & @JohnInCarolina

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KC5InWPjtL8

Hans61 · December 2017

@pgprescott the msn taxes chart covers the working poor to upper middle class/lower upper class

Do you have any material that shows how it affects the top 1%?

i don’t think I’ll be doing cartwheels over an extra 2-3k - disproportionate benefit to the rich that they don’t need and won’t make any difference in their day to day life just like my 2-3k will make little difference to me

i dont think its a fair plan

ill listen and consider anything I’m missing though

pgprescott · December 2017

@Hans61 I think the rates are unchanged at the highest level. Doh! If you notice in this chart the percentage of cut goes down as the income goes up. I’ll take your 3k. I’ll send you my address and you can just mail me a check. What do you want, a $50000 cut what you only pay in 20k? Jeez. The benefit is disproportionate, it just happens to be punitive on the wealthy. Just as the current system is also biased towards the poor. That’s why they call it progressive taxation. Now, capitol gains is another story all together. I would argue that that money has already been taxed, then they tax it again. That’s the beauty of Govt.

people should ponder why folks like Gates and Buffet have zero intention of leaving their fortunes to the Treasury.

pgprescott · December 2017

@Hans61 this appears to show that they will in fact get a cut to 35%. We shall see in the end. I’m glad I don’t have to pay 35%

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-tax-plan-will-hurt-this-one-bracket-of-high-income-earners-2017-10-23

nolaegghead · December 2017

Go away, simpleton.

Arizona decisions....

Comments

Categories