Government analysis shows House tax bill would increase the cost of college by $71 billion over a decade.
Here is the explanation from U of M about the tax increase:
I find it curious that outside of NYT that there isn’t a bigger full on blitz against this. Am I missing something? Is it not ad serious as it appears? I told my wife about it and she thinks it’s so ludicrous that it won’t pass as is but I am not seeing any outrage in the mass media about it. Now, if we consider that less than 7% enroll in graduate school, is it an “elitist” problem and we are going to have to deal with it in the current USA climate? Surely, the House and Senate have children in grad-school?
Yeah, bankrupting students is as important as a pedophile going into the senate and much of the MSM seem only able to concentrate on one shiny object at a time.
That said, it’s been all over Chronicle of Higher Ed, and I’ve seen it on others like HuffPo, the Nation, and MSNBC.
If you want some examples of why people think it’s fine to tax grad students out of graduate school, see the last several pages of: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/2020685-new-tax-proposals.html#latest
Also, over half of Republicans think college is bad (see: http://www.newsweek.com/republicans-believe-college-education-bad-america-donald-trump-media-fake-news-634474) so the party heads are going right in line with something they know their base won’t mind.
@romaingypsyeyess that is just depressing.
^ Yeah 
Eeek! That should be ISN’T as important
Just wait … there are more changes to come to higher ed in the form of the Higher Ed Act reauthorization. The proposed changes are not pretty, and I predict that our higher ed system is going to take a giant step backwards. (Gotta edit my comments … I work in higher ed & am in a very, very bad mood this week.)
Perhaps bcos it impact so few people? (Just guessing here.) Assuming your 7% number is correct, recognize that “only” 145k students receive tuition waivers of any amount per the Grad School group. Many grad programs (terminal MAs, Law school, biz) can be cash cows for the University so that they are not impacted.
Even in the 145k, some of them receive named Fellowships which presumably will remain tax free. So, any impact is a subset of a subset of grad students. Actual number???
Yeah, it will stink if you are one of those impacted, but given the small number, at least relative to the millions who might incur medical premium increases, its not surprising that this is not as widely a discussed topic in the media. And don’t forget, the NYT catchment area includes the most pricey private Unis. Other states’ flagships are much less costly, so any tax impact is much, much less.
btw: it looks like the Senate bill keeps tuition waivers tax free. Assuming that it passes – and odds are less than 50% today – its then off to conference committee for horse-trading.
Just my $0.02.
There are many people who only hear, and believe, the propaganda being put out by the party in power. It won’t be until a few years downstream, when their taxes go up, that they will start paying attention to all the fine print in the tax bill.
@bluebayou are you saying that tuition waivers are somehow proportional to medical premiums?
@kelsmom, what is the Higher Ed Act, and what is happening with it? Or should we start another thread?
The tuition waiver issue is getting more media traction in the last couple days. Maybe because it is pretty easy to explain, and also because the impact is so ridiculous – students seeing 300% or 400% increases, which is so obviously not what the bill promoters claim the impact will be.
I posted about the Pell Grant pay back on social media today and it blew up quickly. Hoping it makes it out beyond my circle.
We are going to lose many years cohort of future engineering innovators, cancer research and drug progress, vaccine development, environmental scientists, food and ag response to climate changes, etc etc
Do they not realize that other countries such as China are pouring money into these fields? From a business and industry standpoint, the USA just shot itself in the foot.
@“Snowball City” yup. They don’t care though. Their wealth is set and by the time it really catches up with us, most of those voting on this will be dead.
I fully anticipate emigrating once (if) I get my phd at this rate.
I am enmeshed in the field of STS (science technology & society) so I’m around a LOT of STEM people even though I’m a humanist. Most of them anticipate working somewhere other than the US- especially those who are currently on the job market. It’s just that very few STEM PhDs I know think they’ll have anything resembling job security and their skills are just too in-demand for this crap.
Considering that some people consider many of these topics to be “threatening” ideas (climate change, replacement of coal and oil as energy sources, vaccines, evolutionary biology, etc.), and see science and engineering graduate students as unwanted immigrants accelerating the “threat” of the US becoming majority non-white, perhaps that is seen as desirable for some people.
Consider that China’s taken a page from the US (circa 1960s) playbook and has started offering full ride scholarships to top international students from developing nations (or even developed, actually). Full tuition, insurance, room, board, lenovo laptop, sometimes even a small stipend. Beside stem fields, they’re investing in young people who have shown strong foreign language skills and other qualities of use for international business and international relations/diplomacy.
Because cultural preferences and ties created during college and graduate studies have a profound impact, the effects are going to be very big very fast.
Now is NOT the time the US wants fewer grad students and more researchers leaving. Not only is that a net loss for the country, but it’s a net gain for others.
The tuition waiver issue is a huge one for this family. We have one kid who is getting a $25,000 a year tuition waiver. Her monetary stipend is…$1200 for the year…that’s it.
I guess paying taxes on that stipend is cheaper than paying the school that stipend…but frankly…I’d rather see the money go to the school. In the case of the program my kid is in…this will significantly reduce the interest in this particular program in terms of applicants.
Here is my idea…that tuition waiver tax should NOT go into effect until 2020. That way, current students would likely not be affected…and future ones could decide if the tax bill makes it worth applying for and taking these waivers.
For some, it will be if their stipend and benefits are worthwhile too.
For others, it won’t be beneficial because the tax bill will far outweigh other benefits they get.
^My PhD took 7 years. 2020 is two years away.
It is going to kneecap innovative companies in my state such as 3M and Metronic. They have large staffs of highly educated people. The effect probably won’t be felt for at least 5 years as I think current students will find a way to finish. Then the rest of the baby boomers start retiring…
All this from the party that says it is for businesses.
Please don’t think that I don’t value the humanities PhD’s and the natural resources PhD. I do. I am just trying to come up with an argument that will work on my representative and his values/priorities.