Republican Tax Plan 2017

[jean]

Oh yeah, I think the odds are they definitely pass SOMETHING.  They have to or they will have literally nothing to show for a year of complete GOP control. Doesn't matter at this point how shitty the bill actually is, as long as it cuts corporate taxes.

It seems like they are in a lose-lose situation for the GOP here. However, the "lose" of not passing anything is a more certain loss than passing something that is unpopular. They can probably spin passing something unpopular, and people might forget by 2018 elections, or they can remind people that they got a $1000 tax cut and they can buy a new car or renovate their kitchen with that.  (Ha. ha. ha.)

Most average americans don't want this tax reform, but that isn't how our government works.  The GOP could take a little more time and pass something more popular (or maybe tax reform is bound to be unpopular because someone has to give something up?) but they probably don't want to risk any delays.  Rushing things through seems to be working...

[wenchsenior]

Oh they got something done, something their base will continue to reward them for for a while.

True.  I wish the liberal base would get half as motivated over things like judicial appointments as they do over minority, etc., civil rights issues.  The right seems to never lose track of the bigger more consequential over longer periods of time (ETA for clarity) battles.  I believe (someone might correct me) that there have been an unprecedented number of super conservative judicial appointments under Trump. That very likely will be his big legacy. Possibly his only legacy.

[dragoncar]

Oh yeah, I think the odds are they definitely pass SOMETHING.  They have to or they will have literally nothing to show for a year of complete GOP control. Doesn't matter at this point how shitty the bill actually is, as long as it cuts corporate taxes.

Honestly I wish they'd just lower corporate taxes and leave everything else alone.  Deficit spending is not the end of the world, and it's easier to fix later.

[TexasRunner]

Oh yeah, I think the odds are they definitely pass SOMETHING.  They have to or they will have literally nothing to show for a year of complete GOP control. Doesn't matter at this point how shitty the bill actually is, as long as it cuts corporate taxes.

It seems like they are in a lose-lose situation for the GOP here. However, the "lose" of not passing anything is a more certain loss than passing something that is unpopular. They can probably spin passing something unpopular, and people might forget by 2018 elections, or they can remind people that they got a $1000 tax cut and they can buy a new car or renovate their kitchen with that.  (Ha. ha. ha.)

Most average americans don't want this tax reform, but that isn't how our government works.  The GOP could take a little more time and pass something more popular (or maybe tax reform is bound to be unpopular because someone has to give something up?) but they probably don't want to risk any delays.  Rushing things through seems to be working...

Do I need to remind anyone how rapidly Obama Care was reamed through the House....?

I disagree with your statement about supply-side economics. N Gregory Mankiw is not a random guy. He is one of the most respected economists on the planet, and probably is among the top 100 respected economists in history. The only go with more name recognition is probably Paul Krugman. I think he works mostly with stabilization policies, but he has papers on tax policies as well, and supports no capital income tax, a possibly LOWER tax for the richest Americans, and wants a consumption tax.  That's not exactly unusual for a right-leaning economist. I am sure Eugene Fama, John Taylor, Gary Becker, etc. all hold/held similar views (though none address tax and growth specifically in their work, afaik).

Don't worry, at least one of us read your post.  Frustrating that the echo chamber still exists, but if those discussing this topic can't 'prove you wrong', then they have no choice but to try and discredit your opinion by calling it psudo-science.  That way, they can happily continue to ignore other valid opinions! :)

Haven't heard of some of these, you have given me some more reading material.  Thanks!

[FIREchiefsr]

Most average americans don't want this tax reform, but that isn't how our government works.  The GOP could take a little more time and pass something more popular (or maybe tax reform is bound to be unpopular because someone has to give something up?) but they probably don't want to risk any delays.  Rushing things through seems to be working...

I believe that "most average americans" have paid little attention to this and are more concerned with how they're going to pay this month's bills.  The majority don't like our president, so will likely disagree with anything associated with his name.

[Scortius]

I feel like we got a bit sidetracked with this discussion of what exactly supply-side economics are and just how rich or poor are domestic grad students. Neither of those really had anything to do with the points I was trying to make. There's a difference between raising or lowering taxes on grad students vs. counting tuition credits as income and essentially decimating the entire research community in the country. As an aside, I've never heard of a $30k grad stipend, even in STEM fields. Not to say they don't exist, but that would be exceptional to me.

What I want to get back to with all this talk of supply-side economics and the desire to spur economic growth through a lowering of the corporate tax rate is this idea that 1) do corporations really need tax relief right now to spur investment and 2) do we actually want economic expansion to be our primary goal. Republicans right now seem to speak to the idea that we need this plan to stimulating corporate well-being and increasing the GDP and create more jobs. Yet, currently, we are sitting at record low unemployment, record high market valuations, and corporations are sitting on record piles of cash. What are we trying to fix here? Do Apple and Walmart really need a lowering of their tax rate or a repatriation event to allow them to hire more people or invest in more capital? It seems like Apple's limitations are the supply of enough highly educated engineers to design their products and the demand of the billions of people who buy their new phone every year. With record profit margins and cash reserves, it seems that Apple's first problem, the ability to recruit and hire more talented people (and invest in new facilities) is not a problem at all. Rather, making sure the people we complain about on this site have enough money to continue to pay for their thousand dollar phones is certainly an potential threat to their business projections. The same with Walmart. What do they need relief for? What would they do with the extra money? They certainly wouldn't give their employees a better wage as they don't have to in order to hire unskilled labor to man their stores. The profits would like go back to the shareholders, the people who are wealthy enough to buy and hold stock in the first place. Would it expand the economy? Sure.  Would it increase the standard of living for a broad base of Americans? Absolutely not.

And that's the catch.  All this talk about expanding the economy continues to ignore one of the most well-known facts. That all the gains from the growth of the economy over the last 20 years has gone to owners of capital, not to labor (the people Republicans claim to care about the most). So yes, we can grow the economy, and certainly it's a worthy goal, but no, that growth is not helping the people who most need help, and that's a problem. You can call it socialism or class warfare or demand-side economics or whatever, but in this time of record profits and economic growth where wealth inequality is nearing the highest it's ever been, why do we need to now focus on those who have gained immensely from this process rather than those who have been completely left behind? There has to be a middle ground somewhere between economic expansion and quality of life improvements for middle- and lower-class America. That is not what this tax bill is about.

[sol]

Back to reality--This is going to be a cluster F*ck.  Murkowski seems to have given in.

Murkowski was bought when they offered her the chance to open ANWR to drilling.  Everyone in Alaska desperately wants to drill for oil in the arctic, because each Alaskan citizen gets a dividend check from the oil companies just for being an Alaska resident.  Murkowski has previously opposed dismantling the ACA, but oil drilling in the arctic has always been her number one issue and it will trump everything else. 

So I think she'll fold, and vote for the tax bill.  Horse trading at its finest.

[Milizard]

I feel like we got a bit sidetracked with this discussion of what exactly supply-side economics are and just how rich or poor are domestic grad students. Neither of those really had anything to do with the points I was trying to make. There's a difference between raising or lowering taxes on grad students vs. counting tuition credits as income and essentially decimating the entire research community in the country. As an aside, I've never heard of a $30k grad stipend, even in STEM fields. Not to say they don't exist, but that would be exceptional to me.

What I want to get back to with all this talk of supply-side economics and the desire to spur economic growth through a lowering of the corporate tax rate is this idea that 1) do corporations really need tax relief right now to spur investment and 2) do we actually want economic expansion to be our primary goal. Republicans right now seem to speak to the idea that we need this plan to stimulating corporate well-being and increasing the GDP and create more jobs. Yet, currently, we are sitting at record low unemployment, record high market valuations, and corporations are sitting on record piles of cash. What are we trying to fix here? Do Apple and Walmart really need a lowering of their tax rate or a repatriation event to allow them to hire more people or invest in more capital? It seems like Apple's limitations are the supply of enough highly educated engineers to design their products and the demand of the billions of people who buy their new phone every year. With record profit margins and cash reserves, it seems that Apple's first problem, the ability to recruit and hire more talented people (and invest in new facilities) is not a problem at all. Rather, making sure the people we complain about on this site have enough money to continue to pay for their thousand dollar phones is certainly an potential threat to their business projections. The same with Walmart. What do they need relief for? What would they do with the extra money? They certainly wouldn't give their employees a better wage as they don't have to in order to hire unskilled labor to man their stores. The profits would like go back to the shareholders, the people who are wealthy enough to buy and hold stock in the first place. Would it expand the economy? Sure.  Would it increase the standard of living for a broad base of Americans? Absolutely not.

And that's the catch.  All this talk about expanding the economy continues to ignore one of the most well-known facts. That all the gains from the growth of the economy over the last 20 years has gone to owners of capital, not to labor (the people Republicans claim to care about the most). So yes, we can grow the economy, and certainly it's a worthy goal, but no, that growth is not helping the people who most need help, and that's a problem. You can call it socialism or class warfare or demand-side economics or whatever, but in this time of record profits and economic growth where wealth inequality is nearing the highest it's ever been, why do we need to now focus on those who have gained immensely from this process rather than those who have been completely left behind? There has to be a middle ground somewhere between economic expansion and quality of life improvements for middle- and lower-class America. That is not what this tax bill is about.

+1

[bdylan]

I'd just wish folks would remember a fundamental rule of tax policy: corporations don't pay taxes, people pay taxes. 

A corporate rate cut will benefit individuals in one of three ways:

1. Increased returns to shareholders
2. Increased wages for workers
3. Reduced prices for consumers.

The incidence of corporate taxes is a matter of dispute in the economic literature.  My own personal thought is that the incidence is going to fall on different groups of people differently depending on the industry.

[ixtap]

I'd just wish folks would remember a fundamental rule of tax policy: corporations don't pay taxes, people pay taxes. 

A corporate rate cut will benefit individuals in one of three ways:

1. Increased returns to shareholders
2. Increased wages for workers
3. Reduced prices for consumers.

The incidence of corporate taxes is a matter of dispute in the economic literature.  My own personal thought is that the incidence is going to fall on different groups of people differently depending on the industry.

I think it is naive to expect 2 or 3. The opposite might be true when taxes go up, but why would the give up the increased profits of taxes going down?

[bdylan]

I'd just wish folks would remember a fundamental rule of tax policy: corporations don't pay taxes, people pay taxes. 

A corporate rate cut will benefit individuals in one of three ways:

1. Increased returns to shareholders
2. Increased wages for workers
3. Reduced prices for consumers.

The incidence of corporate taxes is a matter of dispute in the economic literature.  My own personal thought is that the incidence is going to fall on different groups of people differently depending on the industry.

I think it is naive to expect 2 or 3. The opposite might be true when taxes go up, but why would the give up the increased profits of taxes going down?

Well, say you're in a highly competitive industry (say fast food).  McDonalds can now go back to the dollar menu and maintain the exact same profit margins, plus, steal business away from Burger King and Wendy's.  How do you think Burger King and Wendy's will react? 

[Peter Parker]

I'd just wish folks would remember a fundamental rule of tax policy: corporations don't pay taxes, people pay taxes. 

A corporate rate cut will benefit individuals in one of three ways:

1. Increased returns to shareholders
2. Increased wages for workers
3. Reduced prices for consumers.

The incidence of corporate taxes is a matter of dispute in the economic literature.  My own personal thought is that the incidence is going to fall on different groups of people differently depending on the industry.

I think it is naive to expect 2 or 3. The opposite might be true when taxes go up, but why would the give up the increased profits of taxes going down?

Well, say you're in a highly competitive industry (say fast food).  McDonalds can now go back to the dollar menu and maintain the exact same profit margins, plus, steal business away from Burger King and Wendy's.  How do you think Burger King and Wendy's will react?

Probably by taking tax savings, investing in automation, firing all the workers ,and serve their crappy product to those lucky few who still have jobs...

The point is, as Scortius points out, this will not increase wages as the Republicans like to pretend.  Did you not see all the CEOs at the round table say they would not invest in their workers?

[ZiziPB]

Has anyone actually digested the proposed Senate bill?  The full text got published on Tuesday but there definitely wasn't as much written about it as it was about the House version.  Has anyone seen any good summaries?

[FIREchiefsr]

Has anyone actually digested the proposed Senate bill?  The full text got published on Tuesday but there definitely wasn't as much written about it as it was about the House version.  Has anyone seen any good summaries?

Don't waste your time with the summaries.  If you really want to understand the bill, get the full text and read the sections that apply to your situation.

[dragoncar]

I'd just wish folks would remember a fundamental rule of tax policy: corporations don't pay taxes, people pay taxes. 

A corporate rate cut will benefit individuals in one of three ways:

1. Increased returns to shareholders
2. Increased wages for workers
3. Reduced prices for consumers.

The incidence of corporate taxes is a matter of dispute in the economic literature.  My own personal thought is that the incidence is going to fall on different groups of people differently depending on the industry.

I think it is naive to expect 2 or 3. The opposite might be true when taxes go up, but why would the give up the increased profits of taxes going down?

It's mostly #1, and those shareholder earnings will also be taxed at a lower rate (qualified dividends and capital gains).  This will lower tax revenues.  It will only boost the economy if there are people out there who see a bigger dividend and go out and spend it.  Fat chance.

[protostache]

I'd just wish folks would remember a fundamental rule of tax policy: corporations don't pay taxes, people pay taxes. 

A corporate rate cut will benefit individuals in one of three ways:

1. Increased returns to shareholders
2. Increased wages for workers
3. Reduced prices for consumers.

The incidence of corporate taxes is a matter of dispute in the economic literature.  My own personal thought is that the incidence is going to fall on different groups of people differently depending on the industry.

I think it is naive to expect 2 or 3. The opposite might be true when taxes go up, but why would the give up the increased profits of taxes going down?

It's mostly #1, and those shareholder earnings will also be taxed at a lower rate (qualified dividends and capital gains).  This will lower tax revenues.  It will only boost the economy if there are people out there who see a bigger dividend and go out and spend it.  Fat chance.

Don't forget #4: stock buybacks at absurdly high valuations that help executives meet their quarterly PE targets so they can get their bonus options.

[ZiziPB]

Has anyone actually digested the proposed Senate bill?  The full text got published on Tuesday but there definitely wasn't as much written about it as it was about the House version.  Has anyone seen any good summaries?

Don't waste your time with the summaries.  If you really want to understand the bill, get the full text and read the sections that apply to your situation.

Haha, have you tried it?  That was the first thing I did, but the thing is something like 600 pages long and doesn’t even have a table of contents...  I got through several pages and gave up.  A summary would be useful to see which sections I should be reading.  That’s what I did with the house bill.

[FIREchiefsr]

Has anyone actually digested the proposed Senate bill?  The full text got published on Tuesday but there definitely wasn't as much written about it as it was about the House version.  Has anyone seen any good summaries?

Don't waste your time with the summaries.  If you really want to understand the bill, get the full text and read the sections that apply to your situation.

Haha, have you tried it?  That was the first thing I did, but the thing is something like 600 pages long and doesn’t even have a table of contents...  I got through several pages and gave up.  A summary would be useful to see which sections I should be reading.  That’s what I did with the house bill.

Yes, I did "try it."  I did it for both House and Senate bills.  The Senate bill has 253 pages and a thorough table of contents.  The major amendment is 103 pages.  I've read both house and senate bills for impacts on individual income taxes.  Not sure what you're doing wrong?

[ZiziPB]

Has anyone actually digested the proposed Senate bill?  The full text got published on Tuesday but there definitely wasn't as much written about it as it was about the House version.  Has anyone seen any good summaries?

Don't waste your time with the summaries.  If you really want to understand the bill, get the full text and read the sections that apply to your situation.

Haha, have you tried it?  That was the first thing I did, but the thing is something like 600 pages long and doesn’t even have a table of contents...  I got through several pages and gave up.  A summary would be useful to see which sections I should be reading.  That’s what I did with the house bill.

Yes, I did "try it."  I did it for both House and Senate bills.  The Senate bill has 253 pages and a thorough table of contents.  The major amendment is 103 pages.  I've read both house and senate bills for impacts on individual income taxes.  Not sure what you're doing wrong?

Do you mind posting a link?  The full text I attempted to read was a link from Bloomberg.  It has 515 pages and no table of contents https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/11.20.17%20Tax%20Cuts%20and%20Jobs%20Act.pdf

[sokoloff]

Education spending tends to favor well-off Americans. This is why Obama tried (unsuccessfully) to eliminate the tax loophole that allows wealthy families to save for their children's college education.

I believe that education is one of the fastest and surest routes for people to lift themselves and their progeny out of the lower strata of economic (and social) class and into the upper-middle.

Education alone won't get you beyond that, but there are countless examples, including my own, of lower class to upper middle class in two generations driven in large part by prioritizing education. The fact that people who are in the upper middle class also use education to maintain that position is not a reason to take away that opportunity from the upper-lower, lower-middle, and middle class, IMO.

[pecunia]

The fact that people who are in the upper middle class also use education to maintain that position is not a reason to take away that opportunity from the upper-lower, lower-middle, and middle class, IMO.

How about just plain dirt poor?  Shouldn't they have the opportunity too?  Seems like there are less opportunities than there were a generation ago when I went to school.  Carter gave us the BEOG (Basic Education Opportunity Grant), CETA for college students (Comprehensive Education and Training Act), there were low interest loans (NDSL) and state scholarships.

Well - Mr Reagan and company took the first two away.  I don't know what happened to the National Direct Student Loans.  State scholarships have dried up somewhat.  Mr. Clinton and company gave us these marvelous trade deals that sent many good jobs abroad (jobs were also lost by increased automation).  So less tax revenue was there to pay for state scholarships.

It also used to be a fact that you could get an industrial job over the Summer and defray much of your school costs.  Now you can get a minimum wage job and defray about zero costs.  Or take a loan out and be a slave to a bank for many years.

I didn't read through the multiplicity of posts that preceded my Thanksgiving typing, but I'll bet you the right wing boys in power haven't done jack to help poor folk go to higher ed.  However, I have read elsewhere that these potential tax bills are going to raise the average Joe's taxes.  Can somebody who has read the 250 to 600 pages confirm this?

Am I just getting old or is the country actually going backward?

[sokoloff]

The fact that people who are in the upper middle class also use education to maintain that position is not a reason to take away that opportunity from the upper-lower, lower-middle, and middle class, IMO.

How about just plain dirt poor?  Shouldn't they have the opportunity too?

Of course they should have the opportunity as well.

I didn't include the dirt-poor in my list only because when discussing tax advantages for saving substantial sums in 529 accounts, it obviously doesn't make sense to talk about them.

Most of the top schools are need-blind anyway, so the very poor are already covered there (at least for tuition financing/grants).

The middle class gets pinched on the "how do I afford college?" deal, especially when multiple kids are college-bound. The very rich cover themselves; the very poor are comped by the schools; the middle often have an expected family contribution well in excess of what the middle class can cover.

[doggyfizzle]

The fact that people who are in the upper middle class also use education to maintain that position is not a reason to take away that opportunity from the upper-lower, lower-middle, and middle class, IMO.

How about just plain dirt poor?  Shouldn't they have the opportunity too?

Of course they should have the opportunity as well.

I didn't include the dirt-poor in my list only because when discussing tax advantages for saving substantial sums in 529 accounts, it obviously doesn't make sense to talk about them.

Most of the top schools are need-blind anyway, so the very poor are already covered there (at least for tuition financing/grants).

The middle class gets pinched on the "how do I afford college?" deal, especially when multiple kids are college-bound. The very rich cover themselves; the very poor are comped by the schools; the middle often have an expected family contribution well in excess of what the middle class can cover.

sokoloff, your post two posts above is great.  And one more thing to add about education, the “dirt poor” can start off at a local JC (just like my two “dirt poor” parents did) and get most lower division coursework out of the way for nearly nothing in cost, just like any middle class or rich kid.

[pecunia]

Yes - good response.  I would like your opinion on the other point I brought up.  The country seems to be going backwards.  I do not recall that enormous debt was incurred a generation ago.  I had an NDSL loan with an interest rate of 1.5 or 3 percent.  I've been told there is certainly no low interest loans for the students of today.

Is it harder to go to school today?  Shouldn't student support be an obvious investment to by made by the country?  Shouldn't the short term profit motive be waived for the good of us all?  Are our current politicians doing anything to help with this long term investment in our future?

[sokoloff]

(I'm declining to respond to your other point out of substantial and acknowledged ignorance.)

I do know that tuition growth has been wildly greater than general inflation for a couple decades now. That's been driven in large part by plentiful cheap money and strong loan guarantees for school loans. I can't say that I object to loans being available nor to loans being non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. But those two facts combine to let private college costs grow wildly out of connection to general inflation (because the willingness to pay grows faster than inflation). I just don't have a good answer, nor a lot of expertise in the area.

I funded my college largely with ROTC scholarship, gluing together some other small merit-based private scholarships, working summers and a side job during school, and taking a few loans. That was 26-29 years ago. I don't expect for my kids to get any need-based aid, so I haven't kept close tabs on the current status of it.

[bdylan]

I'd just wish folks would remember a fundamental rule of tax policy: corporations don't pay taxes, people pay taxes. 

A corporate rate cut will benefit individuals in one of three ways:

1. Increased returns to shareholders
2. Increased wages for workers
3. Reduced prices for consumers.

The incidence of corporate taxes is a matter of dispute in the economic literature.  My own personal thought is that the incidence is going to fall on different groups of people differently depending on the industry.

I think it is naive to expect 2 or 3. The opposite might be true when taxes go up, but why would the give up the increased profits of taxes going down?

Well, say you're in a highly competitive industry (say fast food).  McDonalds can now go back to the dollar menu and maintain the exact same profit margins, plus, steal business away from Burger King and Wendy's.  How do you think Burger King and Wendy's will react?

Probably by taking tax savings, investing in automation, firing all the workers ,and serve their crappy product to those lucky few who still have jobs...

The point is, as Scortius points out, this will not increase wages as the Republicans like to pretend.  Did you not see all the CEOs at the round table say they would not invest in their workers?

This isn't a 'point' this is an empirical question.  CBO has an interesting report going through the literature which finds that "the majority of studies find that labor bears a substantial burden" of the corporate income tax.  Of course, they mention the huge uncertainties surrounding this question as well.

If there is a 'point' to be made, its that a corporate rate cut is almost an unalloyed good for mustachian types.  You either have higher returns to capital (which mustachians own), you have lower prices for goods, or you have higher wages.

(https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/122xx/doc12239/06-14-2011-corporatetaxincidence.pdf)

[sol]

If there is a 'point' to be made, its that a corporate rate cut is almost an unalloyed good for mustachian types.  You either have higher returns to capital (which mustachians own), you have lower prices for goods, or you have higher wages.

The Republican tax plan is designed to add trillions to the deficit, triggering automatic cuts to medicaid and medicare.  How is that good for mustachians, again?

[Milizard]

The fact that people who are in the upper middle class also use education to maintain that position is not a reason to take away that opportunity from the upper-lower, lower-middle, and middle class, IMO.

How about just plain dirt poor?  Shouldn't they have the opportunity too?

Of course they should have the opportunity as well.

I didn't include the dirt-poor in my list only because when discussing tax advantages for saving substantial sums in 529 accounts, it obviously doesn't make sense to talk about them.

Most of the top schools are need-blind anyway, so the very poor are already covered there (at least for tuition financing/grants).

The middle class gets pinched on the "how do I afford college?" deal, especially when multiple kids are college-bound. The very rich cover themselves; the very poor are comped by the schools; the middle often have an expected family contribution well in excess of what the middle class can cover.

sokoloff, your post two posts above is great.  And one more thing to add about education, the “dirt poor” can start off at a local JC (just like my two “dirt poor” parents did) and get most lower division coursework out of the way for nearly nothing in cost, just like any middle class or rich kid.

I took a class at the local CC a year or 2 ago.  About $1000 between tuition, fees and book for just the one class. I don't consider that next to nothing.

[Peter Parker]

I'd just wish folks would remember a fundamental rule of tax policy: corporations don't pay taxes, people pay taxes. 

A corporate rate cut will benefit individuals in one of three ways:

1. Increased returns to shareholders
2. Increased wages for workers
3. Reduced prices for consumers.

The incidence of corporate taxes is a matter of dispute in the economic literature.  My own personal thought is that the incidence is going to fall on different groups of people differently depending on the industry.

I think it is naive to expect 2 or 3. The opposite might be true when taxes go up, but why would the give up the increased profits of taxes going down?

Well, say you're in a highly competitive industry (say fast food).  McDonalds can now go back to the dollar menu and maintain the exact same profit margins, plus, steal business away from Burger King and Wendy's.  How do you think Burger King and Wendy's will react?

Probably by taking tax savings, investing in automation, firing all the workers ,and serve their crappy product to those lucky few who still have jobs...

The point is, as Scortius points out, this will not increase wages as the Republicans like to pretend.  Did you not see all the CEOs at the round table say they would not invest in their workers?

This isn't a 'point' this is an empirical question.  CBO has an interesting report going through the literature which finds that "the majority of studies find that labor bears a substantial burden" of the corporate income tax.  Of course, they mention the huge uncertainties surrounding this question as well.

If there is a 'point' to be made, its that a corporate rate cut is almost an unalloyed good for mustachian types.  You either have higher returns to capital (which mustachians own), you have lower prices for goods, or you have higher wages.

(https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/122xx/doc12239/06-14-2011-corporatetaxincidence.pdf)

Here's what I know....

1.  My Wages will NOT increase with this tax plan.

2.  My Taxes WILL go UP with this tax plan (No SALT deduction, I get hit with reduced mortgage deduction, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, I will not be able to take advantage of multiple deferred comp contributions)

3.  I doubt very seriously, my expenses will be reduced...

All of this to to give corporations a permanent tax break, and to allow Billionaires to pass on tax-free inheritances to their children....

[sol]

All of this to to give corporations a permanent tax break, and to allow Billionaires to pass on tax-free inheritances to their children....

This has always been the Republican approach taxes.  It is essentially just another form of wealth redistribution, from the middle class to the very rich.  Democrats have also favored redistribution, but usually in the other direction. 

Which is why I find it so galling that they've pitched this plan as a tax "cut" when it instead raises taxes on most people. 

[Peter Parker]

All of this to to give corporations a permanent tax break, and to allow Billionaires to pass on tax-free inheritances to their children....

This has always been the Republican approach taxes.  It is essentially just another form of wealth redistribution, from the middle class to the very rich.  Democrats have also favored redistribution, but usually in the other direction. 

Which is why I find it so galling that they've pitched this plan as a tax "cut" when it instead raises taxes on most people.

i've been following your responses Sol, and you have been so right on the money...

[doggyfizzle]

The fact that people who are in the upper middle class also use education to maintain that position is not a reason to take away that opportunity from the upper-lower, lower-middle, and middle class, IMO.

How about just plain dirt poor?  Shouldn't they have the opportunity too?

Of course they should have the opportunity as well.

I didn't include the dirt-poor in my list only because when discussing tax advantages for saving substantial sums in 529 accounts, it obviously doesn't make sense to talk about them.

Most of the top schools are need-blind anyway, so the very poor are already covered there (at least for tuition financing/grants).

The middle class gets pinched on the "how do I afford college?" deal, especially when multiple kids are college-bound. The very rich cover themselves; the very poor are comped by the schools; the middle often have an expected family contribution well in excess of what the middle class can cover.

sokoloff, your post two posts above is great.  And one more thing to add about education, the “dirt poor” can start off at a local JC (just like my two “dirt poor” parents did) and get most lower division coursework out of the way for nearly nothing in cost, just like any middle class or rich kid.

I took a class at the local CC a year or 2 ago.  About $1000 between tuition, fees and book for just the one class. I don't consider that next to nothing.

I guess I should have qualified that as "California Community College" fees; at roughly $46/unit, a student can take 12 units per semester for $600, which in an extremely inexpensive AA/AS degree for roughly $3k.  That still seems pretty reasonable to me, especially compared to the CSU/UC cost for the same lower division coursework per year ($10-$15k).  Throw in a couple vo-tec classes while you're at it, and you can end up with a decent skill set and make above minimum wage while then attending college/university and graduate with little to no debt burden.  It stands to reason that someone who is "dirt poor" with an appetite for education has a pretty decent opportunity to get an education (at least in CA).

[pecunia]

 

It stands to reason that someone who is "dirt poor" with an appetite for education has a pretty decent opportunity to get an education (at least in CA).

When I was a kid I remember my older brother telling me the he wished we lived in California as one could go to school for next to nothing.  Looks like this is a benefit that they haven't totally eliminated.  I guess they missed it.

Heck - I even took a class in Contra Costa when I lived there.  I guess with all that brain power in Silicon Valley, it's not too hard to find someone willing to teach a class and make a few bucks.

[RangerOne]

The fact that people who are in the upper middle class also use education to maintain that position is not a reason to take away that opportunity from the upper-lower, lower-middle, and middle class, IMO.

How about just plain dirt poor?  Shouldn't they have the opportunity too?

Of course they should have the opportunity as well.

I didn't include the dirt-poor in my list only because when discussing tax advantages for saving substantial sums in 529 accounts, it obviously doesn't make sense to talk about them.

Most of the top schools are need-blind anyway, so the very poor are already covered there (at least for tuition financing/grants).

The middle class gets pinched on the "how do I afford college?" deal, especially when multiple kids are college-bound. The very rich cover themselves; the very poor are comped by the schools; the middle often have an expected family contribution well in excess of what the middle class can cover.

sokoloff, your post two posts above is great.  And one more thing to add about education, the “dirt poor” can start off at a local JC (just like my two “dirt poor” parents did) and get most lower division coursework out of the way for nearly nothing in cost, just like any middle class or rich kid.

I took a class at the local CC a year or 2 ago.  About $1000 between tuition, fees and book for just the one class. I don't consider that next to nothing.

I guess I should have qualified that as "California Community College" fees; at roughly $46/unit, a student can take 12 units per semester for $600, which in an extremely inexpensive AA/AS degree for roughly $3k.  That still seems pretty reasonable to me, especially compared to the CSU/UC cost for the same lower division coursework per year ($10-$15k).  Throw in a couple vo-tec classes while you're at it, and you can end up with a decent skill set and make above minimum wage while then attending college/university and graduate with little to no debt burden.  It stands to reason that someone who is "dirt poor" with an appetite for education has a pretty decent opportunity to get an education (at least in CA).

Without help community college is to expensive. A lower income person geenrally can't afford to buy something even in the $500 range above and beyond their basic cost of living.

I'm not sure if CC offer breaks for low income students now but CC in general can be an excellent stepping stone to a 4 year degree. I had a number of friends and my brother do 2 years at the community college to get guranteed entry into UCSD, where they only had to deal with 2 years at the higher cost. And most came in and did better than me and my friends who did all 4 years there. Work ethic matters.

The ballooning cost of the UC system and many other public schools is definitely in part the fault of the upper middle class thinking it's a good idea to take out any size loan to get any and every degree....

[doggyfizzle]

The fact that people who are in the upper middle class also use education to maintain that position is not a reason to take away that opportunity from the upper-lower, lower-middle, and middle class, IMO.

How about just plain dirt poor?  Shouldn't they have the opportunity too?

Of course they should have the opportunity as well.

I didn't include the dirt-poor in my list only because when discussing tax advantages for saving substantial sums in 529 accounts, it obviously doesn't make sense to talk about them.

Most of the top schools are need-blind anyway, so the very poor are already covered there (at least for tuition financing/grants).

The middle class gets pinched on the "how do I afford college?" deal, especially when multiple kids are college-bound. The very rich cover themselves; the very poor are comped by the schools; the middle often have an expected family contribution well in excess of what the middle class can cover.

sokoloff, your post two posts above is great.  And one more thing to add about education, the “dirt poor” can start off at a local JC (just like my two “dirt poor” parents did) and get most lower division coursework out of the way for nearly nothing in cost, just like any middle class or rich kid.

I took a class at the local CC a year or 2 ago.  About $1000 between tuition, fees and book for just the one class. I don't consider that next to nothing.

I guess I should have qualified that as "California Community College" fees; at roughly $46/unit, a student can take 12 units per semester for $600, which in an extremely inexpensive AA/AS degree for roughly $3k.  That still seems pretty reasonable to me, especially compared to the CSU/UC cost for the same lower division coursework per year ($10-$15k).  Throw in a couple vo-tec classes while you're at it, and you can end up with a decent skill set and make above minimum wage while then attending college/university and graduate with little to no debt burden.  It stands to reason that someone who is "dirt poor" with an appetite for education has a pretty decent opportunity to get an education (at least in CA).

Without help community college is to expensive. A lower income person geenrally can't afford to buy something even in the $500 range above and beyond their basic cost of living.

I'm not sure if CC offer breaks for low income students now but CC in general can be an excellent stepping stone to a 4 year degree. I had a number of friends and my brother do 2 years at the community college to get guranteed entry into UCSD, where they only had to deal with 2 years at the higher cost. And most came in and did better than me and my friends who did all 4 years there. Work ethic matters.

The ballooning cost of the UC system and many other public schools is definitely in part the fault of the upper middle class thinking it's a good idea to take out any size loan to get any and every degree....

California CCs do offer tuition assistance; if you take CC classes while in high school (as I did), tuition is waived entirely and you don’t have to worry about taking the silly AP tests to get college credit.  Based on CCC stats, CC tuition is about 1/3 the average rate nationwide, and only about 2% of students need to take out loans for tuition at CCCs.

The rise in cost of tuition at the UC system is more tied to the dramatic drop-off in state funding for the UC system rather than easy access to student loans.  Tuition increased dramatically in the years following the 2007 recession, mostly because of cratering housing prices resulting in lower property tax assessments and less money for California State to put towards the UC and CSU systems.  In fact, state contributions dropped from about $6 billion to $4 billion between 2007-2103.  The difference has to be made up somewhere, which unfortunately meant higher costs shouldered by students.

The CSUs, while note all “Tier 1” schools (not that that really matters for an undergrad degree anyways), still are reasonably affordable for 4 year schools compared to the nationwide average for public 4-year colleges, while the UCs tend to be more expensive.

[RangerOne]

Yeah state funding loss could be the larger factor there. But much like any other major expenditure schools can only charge a fortune if working people can get loans generally.

Maybe UC is not a great example since it's initial lower cost was tied to state funds. But I would bet statistics bear out that many people at both public and private institutions pay for their education with loans.

If that number is high enough, then dialing back the amount people could borrow would force some institutions to lower prices since students with the ability to pay more would dry up.

Of course if a school isn't over priced and they need that money. Such a move would be a disaster....

[Metta]

The fact that people who are in the upper middle class also use education to maintain that position is not a reason to take away that opportunity from the upper-lower, lower-middle, and middle class, IMO.

How about just plain dirt poor?  Shouldn't they have the opportunity too?

Of course they should have the opportunity as well.

I didn't include the dirt-poor in my list only because when discussing tax advantages for saving substantial sums in 529 accounts, it obviously doesn't make sense to talk about them.

Most of the top schools are need-blind anyway, so the very poor are already covered there (at least for tuition financing/grants).

The middle class gets pinched on the "how do I afford college?" deal, especially when multiple kids are college-bound. The very rich cover themselves; the very poor are comped by the schools; the middle often have an expected family contribution well in excess of what the middle class can cover.

sokoloff, your post two posts above is great.  And one more thing to add about education, the “dirt poor” can start off at a local JC (just like my two “dirt poor” parents did) and get most lower division coursework out of the way for nearly nothing in cost, just like any middle class or rich kid.

I took a class at the local CC a year or 2 ago.  About $1000 between tuition, fees and book for just the one class. I don't consider that next to nothing.

I guess I should have qualified that as "California Community College" fees; at roughly $46/unit, a student can take 12 units per semester for $600, which in an extremely inexpensive AA/AS degree for roughly $3k.  That still seems pretty reasonable to me, especially compared to the CSU/UC cost for the same lower division coursework per year ($10-$15k).  Throw in a couple vo-tec classes while you're at it, and you can end up with a decent skill set and make above minimum wage while then attending college/university and graduate with little to no debt burden.  It stands to reason that someone who is "dirt poor" with an appetite for education has a pretty decent opportunity to get an education (at least in CA).

That seems unusually low. Here in Memphis a VLCOL city, community college costs $160 per credit hour plus various fees. For a 12 credit hour semester it is $2,077.50. For out of state students it costs about 4 times as much. By comparison, one 12 credit hour semester at the state college equivalent here, University of Memphis would cost about $4700 (depending on individual course fees it could be more).

[mizzourah2006]

The fact that people who are in the upper middle class also use education to maintain that position is not a reason to take away that opportunity from the upper-lower, lower-middle, and middle class, IMO.

How about just plain dirt poor?  Shouldn't they have the opportunity too?

Of course they should have the opportunity as well.

I didn't include the dirt-poor in my list only because when discussing tax advantages for saving substantial sums in 529 accounts, it obviously doesn't make sense to talk about them.

Most of the top schools are need-blind anyway, so the very poor are already covered there (at least for tuition financing/grants).

The middle class gets pinched on the "how do I afford college?" deal, especially when multiple kids are college-bound. The very rich cover themselves; the very poor are comped by the schools; the middle often have an expected family contribution well in excess of what the middle class can cover.

sokoloff, your post two posts above is great.  And one more thing to add about education, the “dirt poor” can start off at a local JC (just like my two “dirt poor” parents did) and get most lower division coursework out of the way for nearly nothing in cost, just like any middle class or rich kid.

I took a class at the local CC a year or 2 ago.  About $1000 between tuition, fees and book for just the one class. I don't consider that next to nothing.

I guess I should have qualified that as "California Community College" fees; at roughly $46/unit, a student can take 12 units per semester for $600, which in an extremely inexpensive AA/AS degree for roughly $3k.  That still seems pretty reasonable to me, especially compared to the CSU/UC cost for the same lower division coursework per year ($10-$15k).  Throw in a couple vo-tec classes while you're at it, and you can end up with a decent skill set and make above minimum wage while then attending college/university and graduate with little to no debt burden.  It stands to reason that someone who is "dirt poor" with an appetite for education has a pretty decent opportunity to get an education (at least in CA).

That seems unusually low. Here in Memphis a VLCOL city, community college costs $160 per credit hour plus various fees. For a 12 credit hour semester it is $2,077.50. For out of state students it costs about 4 times as much. By comparison, one 12 credit hour semester at the state college equivalent here, University of Memphis would cost about $4700 (depending on individual course fees it could be more).

Yeah this seems to vary greatly. The CC where I live charges $75/credit hour. The CC near where I grew up in Saint Louis costs $109.50/credit hour and the CC my wife went to (Valencia Community College) charges $103.06/credit hour.

[Debts_of_Despair]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/26/us/politics/teacher-tax-deduction-house-senate-tax-cuts.html

As someone who is married to a teacher, I gotta call BS on this article.  In the 25% bracket, the educator expense is worth at most $62.50 ($250*.25).  I will gladly give that up if they are going to double my standard deduction and lower my effective rate.  But hey, any one who picks on teachers MUST be evil.  More liberal garbage for people who can't do simple math.

[Psychstache]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/26/us/politics/teacher-tax-deduction-house-senate-tax-cuts.html

As someone who is married to a teacher, I gotta call BS on this article.  In the 25% bracket, the educator expense is worth at most $62.50 ($250*.25).  I will gladly give that up if they are going to double my standard deduction and lower my effective rate.  But hey, any one who picks on teachers MUST be evil.  More liberal garbage for people who can't do simple math.

While I agree that in the grand scheme of things that it is not a lot of money, perhaps the bigger issue we should focus on is that we do such a poor job at the federal, state, and local level of funding education as a nation that we wrote in a special federal deduction in the first place.

Disclaimer: also married to a teacher.

[FIREchiefsr]

When my kids went to community college, the American Opportunity Tax credit offset nearly all the costs.  Are those of you providing CC costs taking this into consideration??

[A Definite Beta Guy]

Education spending tends to favor well-off Americans. This is why Obama tried (unsuccessfully) to eliminate the tax loophole that allows wealthy families to save for their children's college education.

I believe that education is one of the fastest and surest routes for people to lift themselves and their progeny out of the lower strata of economic (and social) class and into the upper-middle.

Education alone won't get you beyond that, but there are countless examples, including my own, of lower class to upper middle class in two generations driven in large part by prioritizing education. The fact that people who are in the upper middle class also use education to maintain that position is not a reason to take away that opportunity from the upper-lower, lower-middle, and middle class, IMO.

There are ways we can spend on education that does not result in additional money going to upper class families. Even if college can help advance lower-class families, the existence of tax loopholes that let wealthy families save for college is money not going to the treasury. For those concerned about inequality, it reinforces that as well.

Even if college can help families advance, it does no one any good if the system on net entrenches an existing class divide. Yale handing out scholarships to the occasional poor kid is like the King of France handing out an estate to the occasional minor Lord: the system as a whole can still be a wealth-extractive entity that serves primarily to enrich the elite, and it makes no sense to NOT tax the system, since the vast majority of the users are the elite. You might even remove the sole avenue of advance for the lower classes, which is ingratiating yourself to the King so you can get land...but who cares? The vast majority of the serfs are not better off because there is one new Lord who used to be a serf. They would be better off having their own land and not feeding money into a system that primarily benefits the elite.

[Malloy]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/26/us/politics/teacher-tax-deduction-house-senate-tax-cuts.html

As someone who is married to a teacher, I gotta call BS on this article.  In the 25% bracket, the educator expense is worth at most $62.50 ($250*.25).  I will gladly give that up if they are going to double my standard deduction and lower my effective rate.  But hey, any one who picks on teachers MUST be evil.  More liberal garbage for people who can't do simple math.

This math seems pretty good to me:
http://time.com/5032079/gop-tax-plan-graduate-students-waiver/

It's not teachers, just TAs, but it's a stupid way to raise tax revenues.  And I don't think that's liberal garbage.

[Debts_of_Despair]

This math seems pretty good to me:
http://time.com/5032079/gop-tax-plan-graduate-students-waiver/
It's not teachers, just TAs, but it's a stupid way to raise tax revenues.  And I don't think that's liberal garbage.

For Hill, the impact of the House GOP tax bill is alarming. He currently takes home about $27,000 a year from his graduate stipend, after taxes. Under the House bill, he estimates that he would would take home about $15,000 a year. Graduate tuition at MIT costs about $50,000, and Hill receives a $30,000 stipend; the GOP plan would require him to pay income taxes on that combined $80,000.

So let's run some numbers.  Gross income of $80,000.  $80,000 minus standard deduction of $24,000 equals $61,000.  This is entirely in the 12% bracket so taxes owed is $7,320. $30,000-$7,320=$22,680 take home.  That is quite a bit more than "half" and just $4,320 less than what he's brining home now.  Also keep in mind that he is getting free tuition from MIT.  Glad to see the liberal thought process of making a bad decision (having a baby while in grad school while barely getting by) then blaming others for your problems when the situation slightly changes, though.  One more thing: if this doofus could look beyond the next year of his life, he could see that the new tax plan will greatly benefit him as a PhD most likely earning six figures.

I would really expect some better critical thinking on this forum, instead of trusting a source like TIME.

[OurTown]

Good chart.  I think I read somewhere that the individual rate cuts will sunset after 5 years, but the corporate rate cuts are forever.  So, I should just FIRE before the individual rates go back up.  :-)  Also, since my company will be saving a bunch of money in taxes, they can pay me more during my remaining working years, right?  Hope springs eternal.

[MDM]

For Hill, the impact of the House GOP tax bill is alarming. He currently takes home about $27,000 a year from his graduate stipend, after taxes. Under the House bill, he estimates that he would would take home about $15,000 a year. Graduate tuition at MIT costs about $50,000, and Hill receives a $30,000 stipend; the GOP plan would require him to pay income taxes on that combined $80,000.

<snip>
So let's run some numbers.  Gross income of $80,000.  $80,000 minus standard deduction of $24,000 equals $61,000.  This is entirely in the 12% bracket so taxes owed is $7,320. $30,000-$7,320=$22,680 take home.  That is quite a bit more than "half" and just $4,320 less than what he's bringing home now.  Also keep in mind that he is getting free tuition from MIT.

Depends somewhat on whether that $30K is considered "earned income".

If so (and assuming none of the $50K scholarship is currently taxable), with the earned income credit and child tax credit the current take home would be slightly above $30K.  Even with no credits (but also no FICA), current total state and federal tax would be ~$1500.

Any comparison with the new tax law should also include changes in the credits, if those would apply.  Haven't kept track of what those might be.

[Michael in ABQ]

This math seems pretty good to me:
http://time.com/5032079/gop-tax-plan-graduate-students-waiver/
It's not teachers, just TAs, but it's a stupid way to raise tax revenues.  And I don't think that's liberal garbage.

For Hill, the impact of the House GOP tax bill is alarming. He currently takes home about $27,000 a year from his graduate stipend, after taxes. Under the House bill, he estimates that he would would take home about $15,000 a year. Graduate tuition at MIT costs about $50,000, and Hill receives a $30,000 stipend; the GOP plan would require him to pay income taxes on that combined $80,000.

So let's run some numbers.  Gross income of $80,000.  $80,000 minus standard deduction of $24,000 equals $61,000.  This is entirely in the 12% bracket so taxes owed is $7,320. $30,000-$7,320=$22,680 take home.  That is quite a bit more than "half" and just $4,320 less than what he's brining home now.  Also keep in mind that he is getting free tuition from MIT.  Glad to see the liberal thought process of making a bad decision (having a baby while in grad school while barely getting by) then blaming others for your problems when the situation slightly changes, though.  One more thing: if this doofus could look beyond the next year of his life, he could see that the new tax plan will greatly benefit him as a PhD most likely earning six figures.

I would really expect some better critical thinking on this forum, instead of trusting a source like TIME.

You forgot to include the $2,000 child tax credit which would reduce his taxes from $7,320 to $5,320 resulting in after tax income of $24,680.

Under the current system I doubt he's paying any income taxes as he would qualify for the earned income tax credit. At $30,000 less the standard deduction ($12,700) and three personal exemptions ($12,150) his taxable income is only $5,150 which at 10% is only $515. Going through the IRS's horrible EITC assistant (seriously I think there were about 30 poorly worded questions to get to an estimate) at $30,000 of earned income they would qualify for an EITC of $2,368 for an effective tax of -$1,853 or -6.2%. So when he says he brings home $27,000 after taxes what he forgot to say is "and then I get a $5,000 refund because I didn't claim enough exemptions on my W-4."

I haven't heard anything about changes to the EITC under these new tax plans so this person would still qualify for that assuming the graduate stipend isn't counted as "earned income".

[MDM]

You forgot to include the $2,000 child tax credit which would reduce his taxes from $7,320 to $5,320 resulting in after tax income of $24,680.

Under the current system I doubt he's paying any income taxes as he would qualify for the earned income tax credit. At $30,000 less the standard deduction ($12,700) and three personal exemptions ($12,150) his taxable income is only $5,150 which at 10% is only $515. Going through the IRS's horrible EITC assistant (seriously I think there were about 30 poorly worded questions to get to an estimate) at $30,000 of earned income they would qualify for an EITC of $2,368 for an effective tax of -$1,853 or -6.2%. So when he says he brings home $27,000 after taxes what he forgot to say is "and then I get a $5,000 refund because I didn't claim enough exemptions on my W-4."

I haven't heard anything about changes to the EITC under these new tax plans so this person would still qualify for that assuming the graduate stipend isn't counted as "earned income".

Child tax credit is currently $1000/child if fully eligible.

EITC would go away under the new tax plan even if the $50K isn't counted as earned income, if the $50K gets included in AGI but nothing else changes.  Again, I make no claim on understanding what if any changes are contemplated here.

[snapperdude]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/26/us/politics/teacher-tax-deduction-house-senate-tax-cuts.html

As someone who is married to a teacher, I gotta call BS on this article.  In the 25% bracket, the educator expense is worth at most $62.50 ($250*.25).  I will gladly give that up if they are going to double my standard deduction and lower my effective rate.  But hey, any one who picks on teachers MUST be evil.  More liberal garbage for people who can't do simple math.

Speaking of the inability to do simple math. The current standard deduction for MFJ is 12,700. 24,000 is not doubling 12,700. Add in the elimination of personal exemptions (4,050 x 2) and the raise in the lowest tax rate from 10% to 12% and there is very little change, if any.

[JLee]

This math seems pretty good to me:
http://time.com/5032079/gop-tax-plan-graduate-students-waiver/
It's not teachers, just TAs, but it's a stupid way to raise tax revenues.  And I don't think that's liberal garbage.

For Hill, the impact of the House GOP tax bill is alarming. He currently takes home about $27,000 a year from his graduate stipend, after taxes. Under the House bill, he estimates that he would would take home about $15,000 a year. Graduate tuition at MIT costs about $50,000, and Hill receives a $30,000 stipend; the GOP plan would require him to pay income taxes on that combined $80,000.

So let's run some numbers.  Gross income of $80,000.  $80,000 minus standard deduction of $24,000 equals $61,000.  This is entirely in the 12% bracket so taxes owed is $7,320. $30,000-$7,320=$22,680 take home.  That is quite a bit more than "half" and just $4,320 less than what he's brining home now.  Also keep in mind that he is getting free tuition from MIT.  Glad to see the liberal thought process of making a bad decision (having a baby while in grad school while barely getting by) then blaming others for your problems when the situation slightly changes, though.  One more thing: if this doofus could look beyond the next year of his life, he could see that the new tax plan will greatly benefit him as a PhD most likely earning six figures.

I would really expect some better critical thinking on this forum, instead of trusting a source like TIME.

I would have a much easier time paying attention to what people say if they were capable of saying it without spewing insults along with whatever else they said.

It's a huge turn-off, and runs rampant these days.