I think he was referring to the provision that tuition waivers for grad students are treated as income. So if tuition is $40,000 per year and you get a tuition waiver and only pay $5,000, you owe tax on $35,000 in "income". This is not the case under current tax law, so it has a pretty devastating impact on grad students, especially those whose parents don't have a lot of money. And again you have to wonder, are we really a country where it's so important not to tax massive inheritances that we disincentivise our own students from getting grad degrees in order to pay for it?
To be fair, like Mav said, one of the differences between the House and the Senate versions of the bill has to do with the treatment of student loan interest deduction and tuition waivers. Is it possible/likely that the final "reconciled" bill looks more like the House version than the Senate's in this regard?
Definitely possible and I think everyone is holding out hope that about a dozen idiotic features of each bill washes out in conference. However it's pretty unlikely that anything in the Senate bill will be removed if it raises cost or reduces revenue at all, since they have to offset that somewhere else to stay under the parliamentary rule they're using to avoid filibusters. And to be honest, there just aren't any Republicans that give a fuck about this particular issue because their voters don't care and they care only about their voters. I'm putting my money more on the universities to all reduce their "tuition" to some nominal level and call what used to be called tuition something else so that they can waive it without triggering the income provision for students.
OK, i see what he's saying but either way, for me it shows a theme of either plan that Republicans want to take from the middle class and give it to corporations and wealthy people because maybe they might hire more people. However many companies have stated that they will use the extra money to buy back company stock. And we know that buying back stock will increase the share price and if their salary is tied to the stock price, it will make them a great many coin.
LOL. Do you really believe that there is any correlation between the corporate tax rate and the levels of wages?
If there is one thing that many people learned recently is that hoping for sanity is not a strategy. I have so many friends who were supporting Trump in the presidential election because "he's an executive, he will do the sane thing the moment he gets elected". Look how that worked out.
How else wages are paid? BTW, investors cheer tax reform. Why shouldn't 'elitetraders'? Or those investors are just Trump supporters?