Here is more info on MSTP:
https://www.nigms.nih.gov/Training/InstPredoc/Pages/PredocOverview-MSTP.aspx
I asked because the support is presented as “tuition allowance”.
And yes, IMnsHO, we need more funding to support more MSTPs.
Is it funded by NIH? In that case, it may be not taxable. As I understand it, tuition waiver from NSF is not an earned income.
Correct.
It’s not a tuition waiver. NSF is awarding a fellowship which PAYS the tuition. Scholarships and fellowships for tuition are not taxable. The living stipend is taxable as unearned income. A tuition waiver is when a school waives the tuition as part of the compensation for being an RA or TA.
Given the nature of PhD work (highly focused, down in the weeds), there will always shortages in certain areas. However, on the whole, many would argue that supply greatly exceeds demand for PhDs, and there is plenty of data out there to back that claim up.
While it’s good to have an “educated populace” at some point common sense needs to take hold… is it really worth funding students for PhDs when demand for them is low? I believe this is the problem that the current administration is trying to tackle – to try and make better use of education funding and spend tax dollars where there is actually demand, which is currently for skilled workers (vocational school).
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/decades-pushing-bachelors-degrees-u-s-needs-tradespeople
The other side of this argument is that a larger pool of PhDs allows for more competition, which increases the quality. The downside of course is that you end up having to fund a bunch of people to get Phds, with no guarantee who, or how many will give the best return on investment.
Re 529 accounts (post #1113, #1114). AFAIK, it currently is necessary to provide the beneficiary’s social security number when opening the 529. (No social, no real way of tracking funds down the line). And, of course, the child’s name, and even if parents know what they plan to name their fetus, there is no way of recording names in public records until it can be recorded on a birth certificate… So unless the government wants to start issuing social security numbers to fetuses… the whole “unborn child” thing makes no sense.
Why not? My unborn children went to graduate school in the womb. They liked it so much they are back in graduate school twenty and some odd years later.
Do you think maybe someone has an agenda?
Sure the fetus provision makes perfect sense. The anti abortion argument is that life begins at conception.
I think that many people like myself feel frustrated when the whole thing is so underhanded. There are so many ins and outs and frankly I feel totally bamboozled. Every projection I have read about how this will actually work say that this will most benefit the rich, while being touted as benefitting the middle class.
The thing that keeps me up at night tho is, how is it possible that the politicians who call themselves the fiscally responsable ones are willing to dig us into such a deep deficit? I just don’t get it. How could a deficit that large NOT lead us into economic ruin? I would much rather forego my slightly-increased tax return for the peace of mind of knowing that we can continue to afford health insurance; that my kids can grow up to have jobs in a strong economy; and that the country will have a working infrastructure.
What @momcinco said—I mean, I could get this as a wrongheaded but at least defensible set of proposals if it were (anything near) deficit-neutral.
But it isn’t—it’s budget-neutral, but that budget busts the deficit even wider open.
This is from a. WAPO article someone posted on the other tax thread in the Parents Forum.
Please…make this be in the final bill.
Oh now this one is easy. More money to their donors to keep them in office is more important than literally anything else.
How is this thread not political?
The deficit thing seems like just a con game, for both parties. One side wants to do something, whether it’s tax and spend us into oblivion, or cut taxes into oblivion. And the other side starts talking about the deficit. But they didn’t care when it was them doing the deficit spending. Both sides–hypocritical.
Where is the Tea Party now???
Basically this means accepting an international corporatocracy, where big businesses control the various governments in this way, so that the governments go deeper into deficit and debt, leading to fiscal ruin.
…
I have no idea what … means.
Does it mean, I agree? I deleted? You’re crazy? I’m being put to sleep?
Seriously. I’ve seen people do that a number of times, and I have no clue. 
regarding companies that might leave - Does anyone know companies actually considering this? I am assuming they would have to be a certain huge size to make it worth the disruption.
My husband is not going to move his company. He has deep roots here. His employees wouldn’t move. It would take years to recreate what he has going in terms of team experience and cohesion. He pays his employees well and has generous benefits which results in very low turn over of staff. No loss of time for training new people or teaching his methods. Also, no shareholders.
What percentage of the economy are companies like my husband’s? The cut in taxes won’t mean any new employees because he doesn’t need them.
Really…who is going to leave? Record profits right now, just don’t increase regulations and the tax burden.
In fact, the point @“Snowball City” makes can be demonstrated simply by looking at the laboratory that is the various states: For every highly-publicized corporate move to a lower-tax state, how many dozens (if not hundreds) stay precisely where they are, even if that place is, say, California or New York City?
And, of course, even when companies do move there are cases like Boeing’s headquarters. If it was all about low taxes, they’d have moved from Washington state to, say, South Carolina or Louisiana or somesuch, but the choice was…Illinois. Not exactly a within-the-US tax haven, you know?