Re: "Ross Introduces Student Loan Repayment Bill" (press releases: Sept 27,
2016)
Thank you all for your combined efforts, here (especially recently) to
help me fix the broken higher ed system, but I'm still a bit confused about
Congressman Ross' recent press release: I have reviewed it, and I think it gives
a 1-time tax credit of $1,500.oo, broken down into three 500-dollar segments,
spread out over 3 years, if and *only* if the employer contributes at least
$2,000.oo/year to a matching fund to pay down the college debt. If I'm reading
this right, it basically allows the employer to have a slight advantage at being
able to give a 2,000-dollar-paycheck bonus each year, for 3 years, and only cost
the company 1,500 dollars each year (2,000 less the 500/year tax credit).
Question 1: Is this right?
Q2: Secondly, how much Big Government bureaucratic red tape is
involved?
Q3: My main point of confusion, however, is the part about whether it's a
"one-time" credit, or rather one that can be renewed.
Q4: And, if it's one time, is this "per degree" the student has? (And how
would a double major count? AND: What about my Associates in Science degree:
does that count too?)
Q5: What is the bill number? (And, where can I look it up? I am having
trouble navigating House.gov)
Q6: Lastly, how will this reduce the cost of college (a common goal among
all of us)? Colleges, when they learn of these tax credits, will treat them as
subsidies, such as college loans, and, as the "Bill Bennett" hypothesis on
subsidies-vs-costs, jack up tuition to match the increased funding
available, won't they? (And, as these are tax credits, this is putting the
taxpayer on the hook again, isn't it?)
PS: I gave my word that if Dennis did "anything," to help fix the broken
higher ed mess, I would give him appropriate support, positive feedback, votes,
etc., and (so far as I can see), he fulfilled my requirements. While I think it
was "just barely" helpful to the higher ed mess, I am a man of my word, and I
will keep my word, but I don't understand the bill in question (my apologies:
I'm supposed to be 'smart'), and so that's the holdup here in my confusion.
Thank you, in advance, for your clarification, here.
I think it would be good to poll constituents to see which approach they
would prefer, Dennis' approach, my approach, or a combination of the above. A
survey would be appropriate here, I think, to address this question.
Gordon Wayne Watts, editor-in-chief, The
Register
www.GordonWayneWatts.com / www.GordonWatts.com
BS, The Florida State University, Biological & Chemical
Sciences;
Class of 2000, double major with honours
AS, United Electronics
Institute, Class of 1988, Valedictorian
821 Alicia Road, Lakeland,
FL 33801-2113
Home:(863)688-9880 Work: (863)686-3411
Voice&FAX:(863)687-6141 Cell:(863)409-2109
See also: http://Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/consumer.html
Gww1210@aol.com ; Gww12102002@Yahoo.com
Truth is the
strongest, most stable force in the Universe
Truth
doesn't change because you disbelieve it
TRUTH doesn't bend to the
will of tyrantshttp://GordonWayneWatts.com / http://GordonWatts.com
Get
Truth
"First, they [Nazis] came for the Jews. I was silent. I was
not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a
Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a
trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for
me."(Martin Niemöller, given credit for a quotation in The Harper Religious and
Inspirational Quotation Companion, ed. Margaret Pepper(New York: Harper
&Row, 1989), 429 -as cited on page 44, note 17,of Religious Cleansing in the
American Republic, by Keith A. Fornier,Copyright 1993, by Liberty, Life, and
Family Publications.
Some versions have Mr. Niemöller saying:
"Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a
Protestant"; other versions have him saying that they came for Socialists,
Industrialists, schools, the press,and/or the Church; however, it's certain he
DID say SOMETHING like this. Actually, they may not have come for the Jews
first, as it's more likely they came for the prisoners, mentally handicapped,
&other so-called "inferiors" first -as historians tell us-so they could get
"practiced up"; however, they did come for them -due to the silence of their
neighbors -and due in part to their own silence. So: "Speak up now or
forever hold your peace!"-GWW