Fiscal Cliff Deal Reached

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
I would like to see how much, if any government funding for scientific research is going to be cut.
[/quote]

What are your thoughts on how science funding will likely be affected? Graduate students tend to be somewhat shielded from the inner workings of securing funding, so if you could describe what would likely happen to research-oriented programs if funding were cut, it’d be greatly appreciated.[/quote]

I expect funding for scientific research to take a sizable hit overall and funding for research in the physical sciences in particular to take a hit. It is one of those things that just does not register as vitally important to the average American, they just seem to think that scientific progress just happens magically and that there is something special about America that means it will remain on top in terms of scientific research so most will not balk at the government cutting funding for research.

The bottom line, though, is that there is always money somewhere in the world for scientific research, and education for that matter, and it as very easy for scientists to get visas to work in other countries, especially ones like me with a lot of experience and an excellent track record in both teaching and research, so it doesn’t really matter all that much if the US doesn’t want to put any money into it, scientific progress will happen, just in other countries. One of the main reasons my wife and I are moving to Norway is because our budgets have been cut too much here and we are not getting what we are worth. Our salaries were not touched, but the money we have to do research and for our graduate students has been cut too much. NTNU has offered me a budget that I find acceptable and my salary there will be higher than mine is here, even after taking the higher taxes in Norway into account (which are not that much higher, actually), so that is where I am going for the immediate future.

As for how funding for grad students goes, it varies from school to school, department to department, and even instructor to instructor. For instance, I offer my grad students full tuition, positions as either a TA or RA, which include a monthly stipend of nearly $2000 and will usually supplement that with some of my discretionary income if their performance is excellent, which it almost always is, and the funding for their research comes from my budget. When my budget was cut, I did not mess with what I offer my grad students for several reasons, but mainly because my budget being cut is my problem and not their fault and it would be childish of me to make them pay for my misfortune.

I know some schools make grad students secure their own funding, but I do not agree with that. Grad students have enough to worry about without adding money to the mix. As an aside, most of my grad students are trying to come with me to Norway and I am trying very hard to make it happen since I made a commitment to teach them when I accepted them as grad students and they are all excellent students with very bright futures.

As to the process of actually securing funding, there are many routes to getting money for research. The big ones are federal grants, and funding from the institution you are working at, such as the college I teach at. The application process is usually tedious and the less experience and successful research you have under your belt the harder it is to get funding. You can also go to private sources for funding, but they will usually insist on owning the product of your research. The plus side to this is they will usually offer a sizable fee to you in exchange for those rights.

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Well, it costs me and my wife about (using a calculator and guessing since I don’t have the actual law in front of me) about $72,000 per year.

I give 10% of my income to the Shuls I go to and 10% to various programs that help people get ahead (e.g., Boys and Girls Club is the primary one).

I will fund my shuls, and not fund the Boys and Girls Club.

Pretty much the reason I am picking this is 99% of the parents who pick up their kids at the Boys and Girls club voted for Obama, going by the shirts, signs, etc.

So Obama can go support them. Elections have consequences.[/quote]

Since the rate increase is +4% on incomes over $475k paying an extra $72k would mean you make over $1.8 million per year, or am I looking at this incorrectly?

“I’m sorry, but everybody’s paycheck is going to be affected.”

-My boss this morning

[quote]csulli wrote:
“I’m sorry, but everybody’s paycheck is going to be affected.”

-My boss this morning[/quote]

Everybody’s paycheck is going to be affected, the payroll tax cut (fica) expired.

awesome, I didn’t need that money anyway.

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Well, it costs me and my wife about (using a calculator and guessing since I don’t have the actual law in front of me) about $72,000 per year.

I give 10% of my income to the Shuls I go to and 10% to various programs that help people get ahead (e.g., Boys and Girls Club is the primary one).

I will fund my shuls, and not fund the Boys and Girls Club.

Pretty much the reason I am picking this is 99% of the parents who pick up their kids at the Boys and Girls club voted for Obama, going by the shirts, signs, etc.

So Obama can go support them. Elections have consequences.[/quote]

Since the rate increase is +4% on incomes over $475k paying an extra $72k would mean you make over $1.8 million per year, or am I looking at this incorrectly?

[/quote]

The new 39.6% bracket isn’t the only change. Add in Obamacare increases, LTCG & Div changes, and Sch A phaseouts and he can make less than 1.8 and have that much of a tax increase.

LOL @ the marriage penalty back and in full effect if you are “rich”.

If you want a glimpse of what happens when government raises taxes for revenue, California just did it, and we are now spending MORE than we did last year, by about 8%.

What state government did, was pay for the spending increase, they didn’t make a dent in the overall debt.

Watch and see how much Obama spends this next year compared to what is raised with the increased taxes, he won’t even come close to paying for the spending increase alone.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Well, it costs me and my wife about (using a calculator and guessing since I don’t have the actual law in front of me) about $72,000 per year.

I give 10% of my income to the Shuls I go to and 10% to various programs that help people get ahead (e.g., Boys and Girls Club is the primary one).

I will fund my shuls, and not fund the Boys and Girls Club.

Pretty much the reason I am picking this is 99% of the parents who pick up their kids at the Boys and Girls club voted for Obama, going by the shirts, signs, etc.

So Obama can go support them. Elections have consequences.[/quote]

Since the rate increase is +4% on incomes over $475k paying an extra $72k would mean you make over $1.8 million per year, or am I looking at this incorrectly?

[/quote]

The new 39.6% bracket isn’t the only change. Add in Obamacare increases, LTCG & Div changes, and Sch A phaseouts and he can make less than 1.8 and have that much of a tax increase.

[/quote]

Correct. I do, however, have a very large income.

I get the joy of paying taxes in two countries, as well.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Okay…that was harsh. As you say, your brighter students should be where they are. But I give talks to business classes on college campuses occasionally and I swear from personal observation the average college kid is about as bright as the average high school student of 20 years ago.

[/quote]

Business students and education students tend to be some of your least bright students in colleges. Before I start hearing all the exceptions, that’s a generality and is shown by SAT scores and GRE scores.

If you want to speak to the cream of the crop, go to a good law school, people working on MDs, physicists, and engineers in their last couple of years. You will be speaking to some very bright people.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
If you want to speak to the cream of the crop, go to a good law school, people working on MDs, physicists, and engineers in their last couple of years. You will be speaking to some very bright people. [/quote]

Can’t speak on the doctors or engineers, but there are a ton of very dumb people in law school lol.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
If you want a glimpse of what happens when government raises taxes for revenue, California just did it, and we are now spending MORE than we did last year, by about 8%.

What state government did, was pay for the spending increase, they didn’t make a dent in the overall debt.

Watch and see how much Obama spends this next year compared to what is raised with the increased taxes, he won’t even come close to paying for the spending increase alone. [/quote]

it won’t be long before the US is in as bad a shape as California. all we need is four more years of Obama.[/quote]

Based on the way Republicans have performed during the “cliff” I’m not sure Romney would have been any better…

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
If you want to speak to the cream of the crop, go to a good law school, people working on MDs, physicists, and engineers in their last couple of years. You will be speaking to some very bright people. [/quote]

Can’t speak on the doctors or engineers, but there are a ton of very dumb people in law school lol.[/quote]

Agreed, that’s why I specified a good law school.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
If you want a glimpse of what happens when government raises taxes for revenue, California just did it, and we are now spending MORE than we did last year, by about 8%.

What state government did, was pay for the spending increase, they didn’t make a dent in the overall debt.

Watch and see how much Obama spends this next year compared to what is raised with the increased taxes, he won’t even come close to paying for the spending increase alone. [/quote]

it won’t be long before the US is in as bad a shape as California. all we need is four more years of Obama.[/quote]

Based on the way Republicans have performed during the “cliff” I’m not sure Romney would have been any better…[/quote]

Oh he would have been better, no doubt in my mind. But in a way I’m glad Obama won as he now owns this mess from start to finish. There won’t be any blaming Bush in 2016. He’ll have been President for eight consecutive years and things will be a total shambles. While the corrupt main stream liberal media may not blame him I think it will be so obvious that they won’t have to.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
If you want a glimpse of what happens when government raises taxes for revenue, California just did it, and we are now spending MORE than we did last year, by about 8%.

What state government did, was pay for the spending increase, they didn’t make a dent in the overall debt.

Watch and see how much Obama spends this next year compared to what is raised with the increased taxes, he won’t even come close to paying for the spending increase alone. [/quote]

it won’t be long before the US is in as bad a shape as California. all we need is four more years of Obama.[/quote]

Based on the way Republicans have performed during the “cliff” I’m not sure Romney would have been any better…[/quote]

Oh he would have been better, no doubt in my mind. But in a way I’m glad Obama won as he now owns this mess from start to finish. There won’t be any blaming Bush in 2016. He’ll have been President for eight consecutive years and things will be a total shambles. While the corrupt main stream liberal media may not blame him I think it will be so obvious that they won’t have to.
[/quote]

You really think Dems won’t still blame Bush ?

I think Dems lost their only ace up their sleeve, now that they raised taxes on the wealthy, what can they use for future leverage ?

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I think Dems lost their only ace up their sleeve, now that they raised taxes on the wealthy, what can they use for future leverage ?[/quote]

Raise more taxes on the wealthy!

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I think Dems lost their only ace up their sleeve, now that they raised taxes on the wealthy, what can they use for future leverage ?[/quote]

Deductions. “Loopholes.” This is precisely why Democrats did not want them in this bill. They new that was the only leverage they had.

I actually think the deal that was reached is good. Not great by any means, but given the circumstances I think Boehner and McConnell did well.

Tax rates were preserved for the vast majority of the country. We did not increase the debt limit and sequestration was simply pushed off. If democrats refuse to negotiate on spending cuts without eliminating deductions, then simply let the automatic spending cuts kick in in two months. This would be a good thing.

If they want to cut down on deductions then that’s fine as well, but I want to see some entitlement reform in return.

The bottom line to the deal is that Republicans now hold the majority of the cards. Taxes were not the place to make a stand. If all it took was a tax raise on 2% of Americans to gain all the leverage on sequestration and the debt ceiling then I think it was well worth it, provided Republicans stand firm on spending cuts going forward. Judging by Boehner’s recent behavior, I believe they will.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
If you want a glimpse of what happens when government raises taxes for revenue, California just did it, and we are now spending MORE than we did last year, by about 8%.

What state government did, was pay for the spending increase, they didn’t make a dent in the overall debt.

Watch and see how much Obama spends this next year compared to what is raised with the increased taxes, he won’t even come close to paying for the spending increase alone. [/quote]

it won’t be long before the US is in as bad a shape as California. all we need is four more years of Obama.[/quote]

Based on the way Republicans have performed during the “cliff” I’m not sure Romney would have been any better…[/quote]

Oh he would have been better, no doubt in my mind. But in a way I’m glad Obama won as he now owns this mess from start to finish. There won’t be any blaming Bush in 2016. He’ll have been President for eight consecutive years and things will be a total shambles. While the corrupt main stream liberal media may not blame him I think it will be so obvious that they won’t have to.
[/quote]

You really think Dems won’t still blame Bush ?
[/quote]

Blaming Bush was looking just a tad worn out this wear, but the people still bought it as the press was selling it. And they only know what they hear, see and read. But in 2016 after 8 full years of Obama it becomes much more difficult and no I don’t think people will be buying the blaming of a President who left office 8 years prior.

After four years you can reach and say I need more time. But after four more years you are in essence saying “I couldn’t do it in the maximum time that all Presidents have.”