• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support taxing tuition waivers?

Do you support taxing tuition waivers?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 5.9%
  • No

    Votes: 16 94.1%

  • Total voters
    17
I get that, but colleges can't reclassify what is, or isn't taxable income.

For instance, they can't stop calling it a "tuition waiver" (taxable) and start calling it "per diem" (non-taxable).

Maybe they would need to structure it a little different, but I'll bet a sharp tax attorney could figure a way to make the "waiver" non-taxable with a different wording.
 
Under the house tax bill grad students and students of college employees that get tuition waivers will pay taxes on their tuition break. I really don't understand how the GOP considers not paying tuition as an income. They would get a double whammy of they take a student loan to pay their taxes because they won't be able to deduct the interest. All while corporations get a huge tax cut, middle class families will get a tax increase. Where is grover norquist when you need him? Do those tax pledges no longer apply?

Why don't we ask college proffessors/ faculty/staff to reduce their income so college can be cheaper?
 
Under the house tax bill grad students and students of college employees that get tuition waivers will pay taxes on their tuition break. I really don't understand how the GOP considers not paying tuition as an income. They would get a double whammy of they take a student loan to pay their taxes because they won't be able to deduct the interest. All while corporations get a huge tax cut, middle class families will get a tax increase. Where is grover norquist when you need him? Do those tax pledges no longer apply?

I'm kind of two minds on this...

On one hand, I always thought that instances where a University is providing essentially an academic scholarship for a student, that what is occurring is the University is simply giving that student a spot without taking any payment for that position. If that's happening, I see no reason that such a thing needs to be taxed.

On the other hand, the way I've seen it explained as the various memes and copypasta about this bill has been floating around the internet, it appears that the tuition is still being PAID but it's being paid BY the University. In such a case, it would seem to be that such a payment should be taxed the same as a scholarship would typically be: i.e. any amount that is used to pay for Room and Board, Travel, or items not required for coursework.

Since it seems University must find these kind of scholarships and fellowships worthwhile (otherwise why would they be offering them), this tax could be offset via increasing the payment to a degree that compensates for the amount that'd be "lost" in taxes.
 
As someone who is very close to entering grad school, this is worrying.

I'd worry a bit, but I wouldn't get yourself too wound up over it YS. Left or right, the reality is that anytime a major bill is coming out the other side will begin to look at it from the singular worst case scenario possible. Threegoofs (hardly someone who's a bastion of right wing rhetoric ;) ) above highlights that there seem to be loopholes, work arounds, and changes that can be made that will make any such hit significantly less than it's being presented. However, for the purpose of scaring the public into action, it's only the worst case scenario that is looked at...i.e. assume the government is going to pass a new law and that everyone else will not change and adapt to it but just continue in the exact fashion they are now despite it being against their best interest to do so.

I'm not saying don't be bothered by this, or to not worry entirely...but I wouldn't get too freaked out over the fearmongering going on as in reality it'll likely be significantly less of a negative impact. Doesn't mean it's not bad, just doesn't mean a bee sting is going to feel like an amputation ;)
 
Maybe they would need to structure it a little different, but I'll bet a sharp tax attorney could figure a way to make the "waiver" non-taxable with a different wording.

If they could, I bet someone would have done it already.
 
Maybe they would need to structure it a little different, but I'll bet a sharp tax attorney could figure a way to make the "waiver" non-taxable with a different wording.

Uncle sam will find a way to go after that.
 
Uncle sam will find a way to go after that.

And that's the game you play with the IRS. It's such a complicated game, even the IRS doesn't agree on the rules.
 
Back
Top Bottom