- Possibly and possibly not. It will depend on the details of your tax return. Someone demonstrated that in an earlier thread.
- If you decide to drop coverage because the penalty for having none, it gives you more freedom. If you're stupid, that can come back to bite.
Horse ****. If you make less than 70,000 dollars, you will pay more in taxes.
Period.
It may be that by then certain things have allowed you to pay less, like not paying for health care, but if your argument is that you won't pay a net more because you no longer will have health insurance, please wait for me to stop laughing at how absurd your position is, but that may take some time.
- What you pay for yourself, you value more and work harder at.
Complete horse ****. A society that wants to actually maximize it's usage of its populace will not put arbitrary barriers up that will by its very nature keep certain people --who are otherwise qualified-- from getting jobs. That goes even more so for scarce skill sets like being good at STEM fields.
Your meaningless conservative faux folk wisdom is that same vacuous, nonsensical stupidity that is driving income inequality and killing economic mobility, the exact opposite of what your phrase is pretending to espouse.
If you are really good, the university will often pay. If not, take out a loan. You stand to make much more money, if you don't study something that doesn't pay.
This has been discussed before, but I guess you aren't going to bother yourself to make sure you're not stating something profoundly ignorant and incorrect.
1.) The university does often pay you, that's the problem. They're paying you and waiving your tuition. Republicans want to tax tuition.
2.) The university doesn't pay taxes for you. Literally, on basic legal grounds it can't do that. The only thing it can do is increase your salary, which pushes you further up in the tax bracket. Which means the university has to either lower its tuition, which is typically set in stone by university policies, or it has to pay students tens of thousand more dollars. Either way it makes it so that the university cannot afford the grad student or the grad student cannot afford the taxes to attend the university. The result is the same.
3.) No, educate yourself before you say things like this.
You cannot take out student loans on graduate degrees. It's literally not legal, you would have to find private loans (which have astronomically large interest, if you can even get them) to cover living expenses while being a graduate student. Again, this is a major, serious barrier to getting a PhD.
I'm guessing by your unfamiliarity with these issues that you don't understand that basically overnight our entire university system will be in existential crisis because universities require grad students in order to function (teach, grade, low-level but necessary administration, etc). If you increase the pay of graduate students to compensate the enormous tax increases (which will themselves raise taxes higher), that cost will get offloaded onto undergraduate students' tuitions.
Nope. There are ways to criticise it, but those are not them.
No. There might be ways to attack what I said, but if there are you definitely haven't found them.
You can't escape the fact that the Republican party establishment is comprised of monsters. And if your worldview compels you to defend them, your worldview is monstrous as well. This bill was one of the most immoral pieces of garbage to come out of the Congress in 80 years, and it may irreparably damage the US economy if left unchecked.
