Harvard’s currently untaxed endowment is 37 Billion dollars!!
For those of you who own private jets, and are millionaires, congrats on your tax break. For the rest of us I suggest investing heavily in wine as we’re all screwed…
I intend to start buying good wine now. I might as well get screwed in style!
There are actually provisions regarding meaderies in there, I think your choice of wine is ill-placed.
@PengsPhils
Are there now provisions against estate tax, allowing teachers to continue to write off their $$$$ they pay out of pocket, and so on and so on?
No…
And leaving a trillion dollar debt to my kid?
No…
So excuse me why I go and stock up for the coming s#%* fest that’s been created in the dead of night.
Oh, I agree with stocking up! I’m just saying there may be more newly tax-efficient alcoholic choices 
Amen to that then @PengsPhils
Last week we received a message from the president of the denominational college where my husband is faculty. He was giving us the head’s up that if the House version passes, not only is the tuition waiver for graduate students taxed, the cash value of the tuition discount given to dependents of faculty will also now be taxable income. Taking the mid-range of an associate professor’s income, the estimates are $4,000-$8,500 per student in additional taxes based on our institution’s tuition.
We’ve got two kids in private colleges, one making use of the discount.
Gulp.
Would it be taxable to the parents or to the child?
MODERATOR’S NOTE: Please stay on topic or the thread will be closed. I deleted a few off-topic posts.
sylvan8798 –
to the parents
This is for an undergraduate institution, so also not eligible for Cruz’s last minute benefit for K-12 private school/homeschool expenses.
I think back to when I was getting my EE PhD in the 80s. One of our gang was someone who was being sent through his PhD by his employer, IBM. So he was “rich” in our crowd, as he was getting some large fraction of a tech salary while he was in grad school, plus getting his tuition paid. The rest of us had modest stipends. So he had all the latest toys, a nice car, even a boat, etc. etc. So in this new world the poor RAs and TAs would be paying taxes on their tuition waivers, out of their modest stipends, while the guy being sent through on his employer’s dime wouldn’t be. Makes a lot of sense.
Yes, they would be treated just like these debts of your father (which by the way weren’t forgiven, they just weren’t collectable and the lenders wrote them off as bad debt; if they were forgiven, his estate would have owed taxes on the amount forgiven and whoever filed his last tax returns would have had to include that amount). If the student loan belongs to the person who died, that’s the estate the lender (the government) would look to for payment. If nothing is there, the government gets nothing, just like the hospital or visa or whoever gets nothing and writes off the debt. The lender could file a claim against the estate or open a probate case just to collect but there isn’t usually enough to justify that…
The debts that are being forgiven by the government are the Plus loans that are taken out by the parents but are forgiven when the student dies. There is no justification for this in any banking law or estate law. The government has a borrower (parent] who is still alive but is forgiving the loans. If the parents borrowed money for anything else for the student (a car, a boat, a graduation trip to Europe) and the student died, the parents would still owe the debt. If the parents borrow from a private lender (or if they are co-signers), the debt is not forgiven. It is for the same thing as the Plus loan, tuition and other school costs, but that loan is not forgiven.
Exactly the same thing happened with ACA and Nancy Pelosi said as much “You’ll see the bill when we vote it in” and she walked into a room and closed the door. In fact, it happens on most bills. Very few read the entire bill before voting on it. They read summaries, they talk about what’s in there, but they don’t read them.
This is just wrong. Under existing rules, employer paid tuition over some threshold(I think it’s currently around $5k) is considered taxable income. Universities are the exception to the normal rule that employer paid tuition is taxable.
$5250 to be exact. But more importantly, that $5k tax free for corporate employees is also eliminated in the House bill. So, yes, donna’s claim is incorrect.
Here’s some reading for you, @twoinanddon, that gives more accurate info on the soundbite you quote and attribute to Pelosi. ACA was much discussed over a fairly long time period. Although it was modified, as most bills are, it wasn’t rushed out like this tax bill.
https://www.snopes.com/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the-bill-to-see-what-is-in-it/
Yes, there were months of hearings and opportunities for all affected parties to have input to the process. It is utterly ridiculous to compare this dark of the night hand scribbled bill to the ACA.
My opinion is that grad school is a privilege not a right. Not sure if the tax applies to grants, but tax away because I have a job that can pay for the grad school anyways and shouldn’t be getting $3558 out of 4319 paid by grants per semester
Well goodie for you. For most of us, grad school IS a job. I work for my university and as a “perk,” I don’t have to pay tuition. I am required to be enrolled in credits as part of my job.