True, faculty not retiring until death has this effect.
However, there is still the numbers game even if all faculty retire at 65 or whatever. Each research university faculty member can supervise a few dozen PhD students to graduation over the course of his/her career. Only one will be needed to replace him/her when s/he retires. The “excess” PhD graduates presumably have to go to assumed-to-be-less-desired academic destinations (e.g. non-research universities, community colleges, high schools) or into industrial or otherwise non-academic research (but availability of such depends on the subject).
This is the same explanation I gave to my D, about avoiding career paths where the jobs are only in academia. The light bulb went on for her with this explanation.
It’s the House plan - quote from Business Insider:
"The plan would also create a $300 credit for “non-child dependents.” Confusingly, your child might be a non-child dependent. This credit would essentially apply to any dependent who doesn’t qualify for the child tax credit, which could mean an elderly parent but could also mean your dependent child aged 17 or over.
Finally, the plan would create a $300 “family flexibility credit.” This would be a credit of $300 for yourself and $300 for your spouse.
But both the non-child dependent credit and the family-flexibility credit would last only for five years — meaning the tax plan, as written, would impose a sudden tax increase on middle-income families in 2023."
How do they screw your kids over horribly, @calmom? I can see the House bill being a serious issue for grad students, but I didn’t think the Senate bill was. Is there something else that greatly affects them?
Susan Collins said the economists told the plan would be revenue neutral. The economists say they said no such thing.
I cannot believe how quickly and completely Susan Collins has been thrown under the bus.
Quote from Justin Wolfer’s twitter feed.
It’s been less than 72 hours since the vote and they are changing the story.
Friday it was Kafkaesque, today definitely Orwellian.
I’m not at all surprised. I watcher her on MTP yesterday, and I couldn’t believe that she could be so naive. I’ve been assured blah and blah. Oh, please.
Neither party gives a rat’s rear end about debt, unless the other party is accruing it. It is disingenuous for either side to start pretending like they really care…but only when the other side is racking it up.
Sounds like leadership was lying to Collins and she foolishly believed them. She should have known better. Holtz-Eakin never said the plan would be revenue neutral or revenue positive. Here he is saying the opposite:
He says that the plan would cost only $40 to $60 billion a year. To be sure, that is a much smaller estimate than what we’re hearing from other economists, but something that costs $50 billion a year is not revenue neutral.
Does anyone have a list of what the last-minute handwritten changes were? I’ve heard they were gifts to lobbyists. I heard something about a cruise-ship loophole, for example.
One of two things can happen. Either the two houses agree on a compromise bill and then both houses have to approve it, or the House can just pass the Senate’s version and send it on to the President. I’ve been predicting all along that the House will just accept the sloppily drafted, midnight-written pile of garbage produced by the Senate.
Here is an unintended consequence of rushing thr bill. If it gets taken out they have to find revenue so guess who will be the target?
“The GOP had originally intended to abolish the AMT. But on Friday, with the clock running out — and money running short — Senate Republicans put the AMT back into their bill. Unfortunately for McConnell, they forgot to lower the AMT after doing so.”
My kids are the target here. One is self employed…he is really getting screwed. And he buys insurance through the exchange…strike two.
Second kid…will be OK eventually. But really…she was doing a 1040 EZ…I can’t imagine her tax filing could get any simpler. But she has the potential to lose student interest deduction…LLC, and she too buys through the exchange… but not subsidized. Her health costs are going to likely rise.
In the meantime, I’m trying to get all my own medical stuff done ASAP.
I wonder if the new and increased child tax credits will be phasing out like they do now. That is another side to this that people don’t understand. All this stuff they talk about has a way of not meaning too much because they take it away on another end. Just like the personal exemption. They only want to talk about doubling the standard deduction.
Also did they change the age for a child? What is it now? 16? 17? I guess anything under 18 is basically a child but my bills sure in heck do not change! Hahaha.
thumper - If your child is self-employed, doesn’t he/she fill out Schedule C on the tax return. I haven’t heard that the expenses that can be deducted on that are being eliminated.
When I heard the Senate bill retained the AMT I thought it was for individuals. I now see it is only the corporate AMT that survived, and it is funny that the AMT rate of 20% means corporations won’t be able to use any deductions to get their rate below 20%.
I also agree that the House will likely be presented with the Senate bill as-is. It just seems to dangerous to change anything and send it back to the Senate for another vote. Impossibly difficult to get 50 Senators to sign off on everything/anything before it is sent back for a vote. We shall see!