Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawayjava | Hacker News Reader

> Combat pay is a tiny portion of a service-member pay.

Yes.

> and tell me if you think that list compares to the large governmental subsidy that is provided to support non-taxation of tuition for graduate students.

From my original post:

>> Additionally, and in direct analogy, GI Bill tuition is not taxed.

It's not just comparative. It's Literally. Identical.

> And no, spouses don't get special treatment. You're making things up to justify your argument

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Spouses_Residency_Rel...

Mind you, I'm not claiming that these benefits should go away, or even that they're enough. But claiming that military members don't receive as many benefits as grad students is absurd.

View on HN

>> and tell me if you think that list compares to the large governmental subsidy that is provided to support non-taxation of tuition for graduate students.

>From my original post: >> Additionally, and in direct analogy, GI Bill tuition is not taxed. >It's not just comparative. It's Literally. Identical.

It's not identical. The GI Bill is a benefit that's conferred on a servicemember FOR SERVICE TO THE NATION. That service includes the possibility that a servicemember will be killed during their service. That's the job. It's not taxed because it's a benefit they earned for selfless service to the nation.

A good buddy of mine is going to law school with his. He did 20 years of service as a Marine.

You want a benefit like that? EASY. Go do 20 years in the Marines. You can have all the tax-free tuition you want.

> And no, spouses don't get special treatment. You're making things up to justify your argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Spouses_Residency_Rel....

Again. This act was for the protection of servicemembers against loss of job or loss of home because of a deployment. It doesn't give them special tax treatment. It forestalls things like foreclosure or garnishment of wages because of deployment to a war zone. There is no special tax treatment for spouses. They pay tax. I paid tax. Just like everyone else in the USA.

You don't understand the arguments you're making.

> It's not identical.

It is an identical benefit.

The justification for the benefit is not identical. In one case we're providing additional compensation to veterans. In another case we're providing an incentive for research.

But the benefit itself really is identical.

> This act was for the protection of servicemembers against loss of job or loss of home because of a deployment

Civilians also lose jobs / are forced to relocate?

Pointing out that someone gets special treatment is not an argument that they don't deserve that special treatment.

> You don't understand the arguments you're making.

You seem to be under the impression that I think these benefits are either unreasonable or sufficient.

I don't believe either.

I'm merely pointing out that there are many provisions in the tax code that are specific to military personnel and families.

Perhaps they deserve those benefits, as you argue. And I agree. But that doesn't mean those things aren't special treatment in the tax code.

> They pay tax. I paid tax. Just like everyone else in the USA.

Including graduate students. Excluding billions of dollars over at Apple.

Maybe if we stopped fighting over who's getting screwed more and started taxing extreme wealth we wouldn't have to choose a winner in this apparent culture war?

> You don't understand the arguments you're making.

Graduate students get special treatment which bumps up their real compensation.

So do military families.

What makes this treatment "special" is that it's targeted at a subpopulation. That's all.

You're the one attaching moral weight to these purely factual statements.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com