The News Thread

[Dak]

I don't want it to only be applied to others, and when I'm making $150,000 per year (wouldn't that be nice) in actual earnings, then I'll be happy to pay more.

You're misinterpreting my criticism of the GOP tax plan as hypocrisy because you think I'm excluding myself despite being privileged. I don't deny being privileged, but privilege doesn't mean I've come into some financial windfall; and since taxation is one particular structural means of assisting those less fortunate, it makes no sense to try and take monies from grad students for money value they didn't receive as money.

Well you may be happy to pay, but I would argue you would be an outlier. I doubt my professors fail to claim every tax deduction available when tax time comes around. Grad students arguably will be able to pay more later, so they may as well borrow more money to pay for the little bit that they were paid in the form waivers, which are really just flipped reimbursements.

I think it's a poor plan, but "oh won't someone think of the poor graduate students" or "Trump attacks academia" or whatever other asinine headlines being generated on the issue look like normal self-serving special pleading rather than addressing the broader structural issues in taxation, spending, and higher education tuition and fees.

I'm happy to talk about the problem of tuition costs. But taxing tuition waivers isn't going to force colleges to change their tuition rates.

.......god forbid you express solidarity with grad students.

I'm more than happy to express solidarity with graduate students when it's a more serious issue. Overwork/burnout, the tuition/loans scams, the politicized and opaque nature of "accreditation", publishing requirements, grant demands, etc etc etc etc. "Oh noz, maybe have to pay a couple extra grand in taxes for 2-4 years" is a drop in the bucket in comparison with the tuition and loan issue.

Taxing tuition waivers probably wouldn't force immediate change itself, but potential student behaviors may.

 

[Nate Skalman]

With more and more democrats calling for higher taxes on the wealthy (they want 70% income tax on millionaires)...it kinda takes the wind out the sails of PhD students looking to get into any "high paying career"...imagine after years of hard work, looking forward to giving 70% +/- of your income away and being "attacked" for being privileged and wealthy, even with many of the richest 1%ers being Dems...And with Democrats calling for more minimum wage jobs (and increased minimum wage) you can almost see what's coming anyway...

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'm happy to talk about the problem of tuition costs. But taxing tuition waivers isn't going to force colleges to change their tuition rates.

It will if colleges become unaffordable for PhD students, assuming colleges need PhD students to exist.

I don't know how many PhDs you've actually talked to, but I feel like this is a misinformed impression. The competition to get into most PhD program is higher than competition for most jobs. Now, the allure of working on research and being paid for it might be more attractive than working at a restaurant or something--but the colleges that are easiest to get into as a PhD aren't offering much in terms of stipends (probably less than $20,000, if not less than $15,000), and that level of income isn't attractive to even the hypothetically laziest PhD student.

The majority of PhD students are looking to open opportunities later in their careers, even if that means taking a position at a lower-ranked university.

That's because most jobs are low-wage jobs. If the university system has sunken so low that having a stricter application process than Walmart becomes a point of bragging, we should just nuke the entire system and start from scratch. If what you said was meaningful in the real world, we wouldn't have a massive shortage of STEM jobs relative to STEM graduates.

I attend a low-ranked university. There are more low-ranked universities than high-ranked ones. I can tell you that these low-ranked universities have trivial/virtually-non-existent GRE requirements, and maybe a 3.0 undergrad GPA standard (which is also trivial for most state undergrad programs) to accept PhD students. You seem to agree with me with that last sentence; PhD students sacrifice years working for shit wages for the promise of better jobs elsewhere.

 

[Dak]

I attend a low-ranked university. There are more low-ranked universities than high-ranked ones. I can tell you that these low-ranked universities have trivial/virtually-non-existent GRE requirements, and maybe a 3.0 undergrad GPA standard (which is also trivial for most state undergrad programs) to accept PhD students. You seem to agree with me with that last sentence; PhD students sacrifice years working for shit wages for the promise of better jobs elsewhere.

I want to quibble about this a little bit: Requirements vary department by department depending on funding, space, and application pool, at a minimum. I would be rather shocked if many PhD programs had trivial GRE reqs and 3.0 GPA standards. I know my program has somewhat higher base requirements than that but it doesn't matter due to the application pool. We have like a 6% acceptance rate due to sheer volume. They can afford to be picky. If a program is in the position where they have to take any mouth breather that applies then maybe those programs need the push off the cliff.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I agree with all of that, I didn't mean to imply that they literally accept everyone and could take public funds at a whim, but programs are gradually growing, and unless the BS/BA-holders are getting smarter as a whole (doubtful), then by definition it means PhD programs scoop more of the less intelligent/academic. If you Google ' "chemistry" "phd" "application" "3.0" ' (chemistry being my field) you'll find plenty of university pages claiming that a 3.0 is the minimum, even more mid-tier universities. That's obviously not the only thing necessary, but I doubt that the University of Bumfuck, Nowhere has a particularly large application pool. Overall, a PhD just isn't that prestigious/important on its own.

 

[Dak]

I agree with all of that, I didn't mean to imply that they literally accept everyone and could take public funds at a whim, but programs are gradually growing, and unless the BS/BA-holders are getting smarter as a whole (doubtful), then by definition it means PhD programs scoop more of the less intelligent/academic. If you Google ' "chemistry" "phd" "application" "3.0" ' (chemistry being my field) you'll find plenty of university pages claiming that a 3.0 is the minimum, even more mid-tier universities. That's obviously not the only thing necessary, but I doubt that the University of Bumfuck, Nowhere has a particularly large application pool. Overall, a PhD just isn't that prestigious/important on its own.

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsf16300/digest/nsf16300.pdf

PhDs have been growing annually, but we are still talking about 54,000 a year. That's less than the population of larger single colleges. While programs in some universities are growing, small colleges are closing across the US, which is helping to balance things out.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/w...-colleges-are-in-danger-of-closing-2017-06-13

I think the status of a PhD seems watered down when one lives in a college town, especially if one works around or in the university. Many if not most people in the US will rarely encounter one though. Psych is a very interesting area because it's one of the largest undergrad degrees but doesn't pay shit for a BA, so one has to get a masters, PhD, or PsyD. Such a large potential applicant pool creates a surplus of degree demand when the jobs aren't there to support the degree demand anyway. Fortunately (and I can't find the chart I saw a year or two ago), Psych PhDs and PhD jobs are in balance. The imbalance between undergrad vs grad degrees does help keep the standards high, while there's a "burning off" with people who really want to do psych work but aren't necessarily good applicants into counseling and social work terminal masters. There's also the I/O folks, but that's sort of an oblique from typical psych work.

 

[Einherjar86]

It will if colleges become unaffordable for PhD students, assuming colleges need PhD students to exist.

It's not as simple as this, but I take your point that they'll need PhDs eventually. Until then, the world of academic research is at risk going down the shitter.

That's because most jobs are low-wage jobs. If the university system has sunken so low that having a stricter application process than Walmart becomes a point of bragging, we should just nuke the entire system and start from scratch. If what you said was meaningful in the real world, we wouldn't have a massive shortage of STEM jobs relative to STEM graduates.

What I'm saying is true because most PhD students are lazy money-grabbers who can't get a job elsewhere. They're getting their PhD despite the low pay, not because they can't get other work.

Well you may be happy to pay, but I would argue you would be an outlier. I doubt my professors fail to claim every tax deduction available when tax time comes around. Grad students arguably will be able to pay more later, so they may as well borrow more money to pay for the little bit that they were paid in the form waivers, which are really just flipped reimbursements.

Why wouldn't they claim every deduction available?

Depending on profession and income, individuals can claim deductions. I have no problem with that. My wife and I claim every deduction we can on our taxes. Everyone should, including billionaires--it's taxes. This doesn't preclude the kind of obligations I'm talking about.

It's amazing that you can see issues of tuition and work overload as "serious issues," but this isn't.

 

[Dak]

Why wouldn't they claim every deduction available?

Depending on profession and income, individuals can claim deductions. I have no problem with that. My wife and I claim every deduction we can on our taxes. Everyone should, including billionaires--it's taxes. This doesn't preclude the kind of obligations I'm talking about.

It's amazing that you can see issues of tuition and work overload as "serious issues," but this isn't.

1. Why would someone be both in favor of raising taxes and take the max deductions? This is divergence in beliefs and behaviors. You can simply not take any deductions and live out your ideals while advocating others do so.

2. You think it's amazing that I think burnout and scamming the public and students out of money to the tune of millions (or more maybe) are bigger issues than a a negligible amount in personal taxes for a small sample of students? Not sure I can help you there.

 

[Einherjar86]

1. Why would someone be both in favor of raising taxes and take the max deductions? This is divergence in beliefs and behaviors. You can simply not take any deductions and live out your ideals while advocating others do so.

Yes, you can. I don't think you know how taxes work.

2. You think it's amazing that I think burnout and scamming the public and students out of money to the tune of millions (or more maybe) are bigger issues than a a negligible amount in personal taxes for a small sample of students? Not sure I can help you there.

Yeah, me neither. You're hopeless.

It's not a "negligible amount." It would effectively cut most grad stipends in half.

 

[Dak]

Yes, you can. I don't think you know how taxes work.

I don't know what "Yes, you can" is even in reference to. I agree, you can simply not take deductions.

Yeah, me neither. You're hopeless.

It's not a "negligible amount." It would effectively cut most grad stipends in half.

Please explain how it's going to cut grad stipends in half. But even if it did, it's not as big an issue as the totality of the tuition and loan scam or the negative health and productivity aspects of burnout.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't know what "Yes, you can" is even in reference to. I agree, you can simply not take deductions.

You said that you can simply not take out deductions and live out your ideals. I said yes, you can (i.e. do both).

Tax policy has nothing to do with personal responsibility. I'm talking about structural change, which means that tax policy allows for deductions pertaining to individuals but still is able to pay for the kind of assistance I'm talking about. Or maybe, after tax reform, some of those deductions are no longer allowed. You're saying that because I think more of our money should go to assistance programs, then I should opt out of personal deductions; but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that tax policy needs to be reformed so that taxes are more effectively collected from those entities that can afford to pay them (which, right now, they're not).

To be fair, I'm also fine with corporations exploiting "loopholes." The rhetoric here is misleading, because these aren't actually "loopholes"--it's simply tax law, and corporate tax lawyers have managed to find ways to skirt certain requirements. There's nothing illegal about this. To put this another way, I'm okay with corporations taking advantage of the tax code because it's legal to do so; but I'm not okay with the fact that the tax code allows for this. I'm saying the law needs to be changed.

I support tax reform, but the GOP plan is backwards as fuck, tries to get taxes from where it realistically cannot, and goes out of its way to damage higher education in the process.

Please explain how it's going to cut grad stipends in half. But even if it did, it's not as big an issue as the totality of the tuition and loan scam or the negative health and productivity aspects of burnout.

Stipends are typically ~$15000. Add a fellowship into that, grad students are probably making $20-$25000. That amount falls into a low bracket in the tax code.

But the GOP bill proposes to consider grad students not as having an income of ~$25000, but of that amount plus what they would pay in tuition. This bumps them into a higher bracket, effectively charging a ~$50-$70000 bracket for people making $20-25000. Obviously tuition rates vary, but generally speaking--best case scenario, stipends get cut by a quarter; worst case scenario, stipends are cut by two-thirds if not three-quarters.

 

[no country for old wainds]

@Funerary_Doom https://twitter.com/WernerFaraday/status/924403114056257536

 

[CiG]

I had the gun to my temple about to kill myself over this taxation debate and you saved my life.

My life now belongs to you, master.

 

[Dak]

You said that you can simply not take out deductions and live out your ideals. I said yes, you can (i.e. do both).

Tax policy has nothing to do with personal responsibility. I'm talking about structural change, which means that tax policy allows for deductions pertaining to individuals but still is able to pay for the kind of assistance I'm talking about. Or maybe, after tax reform, some of those deductions are no longer allowed. You're saying that because I think more of our money should go to assistance programs, then I should opt out of personal deductions; but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that tax policy needs to be reformed so that taxes are more effectively collected from those entities that can afford to pay them (which, right now, they're not).

To be fair, I'm also fine with corporations exploiting "loopholes." The rhetoric here is misleading, because these aren't actually "loopholes"--it's simply tax law, and corporate tax lawyers have managed to find ways to skirt certain requirements. There's nothing illegal about this. To put this another way, I'm okay with corporations taking advantage of the tax code because it's legal to do so; but I'm not okay with the fact that the tax code allows for this. I'm saying the law needs to be changed.

I support tax reform, but the GOP plan is backwards as fuck, tries to get taxes from where it realistically cannot, and goes out of its way to damage higher education in the process.

Ok, I should have reverse worded it for clarity, but you figured it out. I agree that "loopholes" are simply tax law. I agree that at least some of what I've read in the tax proposal makes no sense from a standpoint of revenue collection, or in the sense of targeted tax relief for voters. What I don't agree with is saying it's being consistent to be for higher taxes systemically yet not volunteer them. Federal taxes primarily if not entirely go into the General Fund. Income taxes are fungible as it relates to federal programs.

Stipends are typically ~$15000. Add a fellowship into that, grad students are probably making $20-$25000. That amount falls into a low bracket in the tax code.

But the GOP bill proposes to consider grad students not as having an income of ~$25000, but of that amount plus what they would pay in tuition. This bumps them into a higher bracket, effectively charging a ~$50-$70000 bracket for people making $20-25000. Obviously tuition rates vary, but generally speaking--best case scenario, stipends get cut by a quarter; worst case scenario, stipends are cut by two-thirds if not three-quarters.

Ah. So really it's just going to hit people going to expensive private institutions.

My annual tuition and health insurance reimbursement is around 8k, and my stipend is around 16k. Even a single person is unlikely to need to itemize their tax return with that amount of income, and I'd remain below poverty level with my 3 dependents. No one is making people attend places with tuition rates of 50k per year. Since that is a uniquely private institution problem, they will be better able to adjust than public institutions would - but public institutions wouldn't really have near the problem to begin with.

It makes sense though why students at BU and similar institutions would be scared as shit.

 

[no country for old wainds]

https://twitter.com/i/moments/928685099121508353

lol finally it's happening. rip louis ck

 

[Einherjar86]

What I don't agree with is saying it's being consistent to be for higher taxes systemically yet not volunteer them. Federal taxes primarily if not entirely go into the General Fund. Income taxes are fungible as it relates to federal programs.

Consistency isn't absolute in this case, and I can't convince you of it, so I'm not going to keep trying.

It depends on where you locate the issue, and you and I don't agree on that point.

EDIT: I had a longer response, but

 

[Dak]

EDIT: I had a longer response, but

I read it. Yeah, I'm at the low end of the spectrum but that was intentional. I found a uniquely competitive program in a low cost of living area. Going to a more "elite" university that generally does the same shit as most clinical psych departments (but not mine) at much greater economic cost/poorer QOL didn't make sense. Maybe this will turn out to be another benefit.

I agree it's targeted primarily at the Ivy League etc. I don't think the "consequences" are that dire though; if it creates that much of a bottleneck university systems will adapt, although I'm sure there will be some short term pain for people at overpriced institutions. It's not a move that I see hurting the GOP politically because it's a group that barely votes for them anyway - and those that do are a fraction of an electorate in places which are overwhelmingly blue anyway. All that said, no guarantee it stays in its current iteration, and if it does, that it passes.

 

[Funerary_Doom]

Hispanics have similar socioeconomic backgrounds as a group relative to blacks. Despite that they are still murdered (and therefore murder due to most murder being intraracial) at a rate far lower than blacks. While you are correct that income correlates significantly with homicide, poor white groups tend to be victimized at a lower rate than even wealthier blacks. This also ignores that the majority of interracial murders are black-on-white, not white-on-black, meaning the low-income whites are victimized by blacks more often than low-income blacks are by whites.

• 
  For the period 2008–12—
• Persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000).
• Persons in poor households had a higher rate of violence involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000) compared to persons above the FPL (0.8–2.5 per 1,000).
• The overall pattern of poor persons having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both whites and blacks. However, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics did not vary across poverty levels.
• Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000).
• Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in rural areas (38.8 per 1,000).
• Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137
This is coming from a .gov site as well. In 2013, the FBI has black criminals carrying out 38 per cent of murders, compared to 31.1 per cent for whites. The offender’s race was “unknown” in 29.1 per cent of cases.
FBI arrest rates are one way to understand this. As blacks are often arrested at higher rates as well.
In any event, a study (which I'll leave the link to below) of violent crime in deprived neighborhoods in Cleveland, Ohio, found that reductions in poverty led to reductions in the crime rate in exactly the same way in predominantly black and white areas, suggesting poverty, not race, is the biggest factor.


"The results indicated that reductions in poverty were associated with reductions in violent crime rates in both predominately white and predominately black neighborhoods. Consistent with the racial invariance hypothesis suggested by the social disorganization and anomie perspectives, the effect of changes in poverty on changes in violent crime was statistically indistinguishable for the two racial groups. "

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.587.5383&rep=rep1&type=pdf

I said they commit spree killings at a rate proportional to their population size; run of the mill homicide, whites commit it below-average. 57% of mass shooters per whatever metric this figure uses (other figures broaden mass shootings to mean where 3 or more are killed, which increases the proportion of blacks defined as mass shooters) are white, which approximately falls in line with the percentage of white people in America.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

Which kinds of crimes? Gun homicide, yes, white Americans murder at a rate that ranges between 2 to 10 times higher than Europeans. All murder, that gap shrinks a lot. Assault, America falls in line more or less. If you look at the whitest states with, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, etc, they all have homicide rates on only a bit above the average Western European nation. For example,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicide_rate

Homicide rates in the whiter states tend to hover between 1 and 2 per 100k, with the notable exception of West Virginia (which is very poor and shitty state). Canada's rate is 1.7 per 100k, France's rate is 1.6 per 100k, Denmark's rate is 1 per 100k, etc. While there are certainly countries that have much lower rates, e.g. Norway and Ireland, it's still a factor of only a few fold. When you factor income inequality differences between white Americans and European Americans, the difference becomes negligible.

So you agree that socioeconomic status/wealth is an indicator of whether or not a white American or European is more likely to commit a crime, but you won't see this in regards to blacks? Ok.

I don't understand the "it's just crime" point you're making. Sounds like you're making the argument that I personally shouldn't care about black crime because it will never affect me as long as I live in a white area. I can agree from a purely selfish perspective, but that still sweeps under the rug the reality that American blacks in ghettos live in conditions comparable to the worst parts of Latin America, aka the worst crime zones on the planet. That's a problem, even if people ignore it just because it doesn't make the news.

No, I'm not making that argument. I should look at crime rates in West Virginia. You see, I'm from the city and lucky enough to have moved at a young age to a good neighborhood (which is a predominantly Caribbean/ black neighborhood) and I have no idea about predominantly white and poor places like West Virginia. I do know what poor black neighborhoods are like. And is there crime? Absolutely, up the wazoo. However, I'm sure crime in WV is referred to crime there not "white-on-white" crime. My point was by adding "black on black" crime and bringing it up anytime there's a story on the news about a cop shooting down a black kid or idk a crime involving blacks, is deflecting of other issues and often times irrelevant to the topic at hand. I'm not denying there's an issue. Of course there is, but your perspective is very narrow and limited, which is why I'm arguing with you right now. Do some traveling and see how other people live. You're not going to fully understand things by just reading and not experiencing.

When have I been quick to jump on another over race? I called Trayvon Martin a violent thug because he was one and a lengthy trial basically proved that. Can't think of any other examples on this forum. Generally if there's a mass shooting on a campus, I'll assume it's a disgruntled white or Asian type with no terroristic motive, because that's how it often goes down. Same if there's one at an abortion clinic. Shoot up a church in a white area and I'll assume you're a white atheist. Shoot up a populated street in some affluent area and I'll assume you're a Muslim. To reiterate as I've shown above, whiteness isn't a great predictor of mass shootings as a whole, because they commit mass shootings proportional to their population.

I've been taking long breaks here, but anytime I've read a post from you it was either about some aryan utopia or something pretty bigoted. I literally laughed at the term "atheist crimes" (is this even something you can look up on any government crime statistic website?) in regards to the recent mass shootings (the one in Nevada I'm referring to and the church one). I've been listening to a ton of podcasts and ISIS takes credit for a ton of crimes that they have nothing to do with. i always wonder how many of these muslims are actually connected to ISIS, but that's another thing. Also, I'm still very confused. The fact that white Americans commit more violent crimes than Europeans, doesn't have me convinced they commit violence crimes in America proportional to their population.

 

[CiG]

Whether a Muslim is actually connected to ISIS seems less relevant than their often expressed sympathies for ISIS as well as their Islamic justifications for their crimes.

Seems unfair to accuse HBB of expressing Aryan utopianism when he wants the western world to fall and the eastern world to take its place, he's basically a fucking traitor, just saying.

 

[Funerary_Doom]

We do? I can't remember the last time anybody really talked about it.



Sure, certainly seems to be the case. I don't know that anybody here has denied that, but when a white male does a mass shooting, you seem to be suggesting that it's a faux-pas to delve beyond "he's white."

Most white male mass shootings are due to mental health iirc statistically. They're usually on psychotropic drugs of some kind or have a history of mental illness. That's just a fact, I'm sorry if that bothers anybody who just wants to chalk it up to race.

I'm actually not chalking it up to race. I'm no bigot. I have nothing against anyone based on their race. I'm sure no one who knows me even a bit thinks that. I just think its very convenient that here (and other places that are bias) whites get this pass of being mentally ill, and other races do not. There's tons and tons of mentally ill people in black poor communities they are just either unaware of their condition or can't afford the help. There's been various studies on this as well. The poorer you are the more likely you are to have other health impairments including mental illness.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44251/ Under the section the Need for mental Health.

Similarly, we also delve beyond race here when a non-white person does something insane, I've never seen anybody here say "well they clearly shot up everybody at the Pulse nightclub because they were brown skinned" no we talked about the ideology and intentions of the shooter.


He said it was interesting that the recent shooters have been either atheist or Muslim. I'm not really sure how you're extrapolating some grand racist scheme from a fairly benign observation tbh.

He said atheist because it was a church that was shot up, I thought it was obvious that was the connection to atheism as a possible (imo farfetched) motive here. The last church that was shot up by a white male was racially motivated and I don't think anybody here denied that.

Some of you do go beyond race. Some of you don't. As explained to him, I've read quite a number of posts from him lately that's been blatant white supremacy, which I mean it is what it is. That's how he feels. However, I thought it was extremely narrow minded and just straight up ridiculous to refer to the recent shootings as an atheist crime. That's not even something you can look up on any statistical website. I was also thinking of the Nevada shooter as well not just the one that happened in Texas in the church. Also, I don't beliee the last church that was racially motivated was even talked about here.