Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The People's Bailout

howtosharpenpencils.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 323 posts

Re: The People's Bailout

#281

Post by justindocanto »

elemenohpee wrote: post #272
justindocanto wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The action is people donating money that is going to be put to waste in comparison to their immediate needs. They should change the entire event to fundraising more food, generators, shelter, clothes & necessities for these people. If they want to do something extraordinary, which it seems they're trying to paint this event as, they should do something extraordinary like take all the money they raise and start buildi…

This is not necessarily connected to the Sandy relief efforts, and there's nothing wrong with different parts of the Occupy movement working on different problems. There's already enough houses, we don't need to build more. What needs to change is peoples' tacit acceptance of the current debt relations, which is precisely what this action is challenging. I'm not sure why you put social capital in scare quotes, it has…

They dont need more homes? Are you not familiar with all the homes that burned down during sandy?

There's nothing wrong with them moving onto other things... but those other things are a waste of time and are not beneficial. If youre going to act like youre trying to make the world a better place, at least do something that supports that. Paying somebodies old debt from 5 years ago is a freebie that teaches nothing. It didnt save anybody money this month. It didnt teach anybody a lesson. It gave some one a free way out of a debt that havent paid in years, which was more than likely their own fault for over borrowing. Meanwhile, people are living in unsafe conditions in NYC & Jersey with very little to their name right now in the present tense. Helping Sandy victims is the first productive thing OWS has ever done, and they should stick to that.

And for the record, I'm quite aware that social capital has a definition. I put quotes around it because the original usage didn't match up with the same definition you linked to and I was mocking it.

Re: The People's Bailout

#282

Post by tsotha »

tilgovi wrote: post #273
tsotha wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I believe that the vast majority of student debt is not people going to an Ivy institution. The difference is nobody goes into $200k debt studying at the University of Phoenix, whereas people who go to lower tier Ivies on student loans and get less marketable degrees have literally sold themselves into debt slavery.

Except you're the one who brought up $200k as a number to begin with. And those people who sold themselves into debt slavery, by going to an extremely good school, may actually still hold jobs that will allow them to repay their loans eventually . Ignoring your arbitrary choice of debt number, we're looking at many people in debt and many of them without any college degree whatsoever. And talking about parents isn't…

>Except you're the one who brought up $200k as a number to begin with.

Yes.

>And those people who sold themselves into debt slavery, by going to an extremely good school, may actually still hold jobs that will allow them to repay their loans eventually.

Well then, there's no problem, is there?

>Thinking that only 18-year-olds can be fooled into saddling themselves with excessive debt is nonsense.

At some point people have to think for themselves.

Re: The People's Bailout

#283

Post by tsotha »

rprasad wrote: post #88
patio11 wrote: post #25

For the benefit of folks who might not understand how debt collection works, which may include OWS: if you buy $10,000 of an individual's debt for $500 and then forgive the debt, they have just incurred income of $10,000 and are obligated to pay taxes on it exactly as if you had handed them $10,000 in cash for services rendered. If you don't inform the IRS that you forgave the debt, via a 1099-C, you're going to get…

if you buy $10,000 of an individual's debt for $500 and then forgive the debt, they have just incurred income of $10,000 and are obligated to pay taxes on it exactly as if you had handed them $10,000 in cash for services rendered. It could alternatively be characterized as a gift, in which case it is not income to the recipient (but could incur gift taxes to the "gifter"). If you don't inform the IRS that you forgave…

>Moreover, the IRS does exercise discretion over pursuing cases--as the OP has already indicated, they have provided their blessing to these transactions and it is unlikely that any negative tax consequences will accrue (especially in this political environment).

Rule of law. Who needs that old thing anyway?

Re: The People's Bailout

#284

Post by greedo »

bobwaycott wrote: post #278
greedo wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't that people are pursuing degrees, it's that some are pursuing economically unviable degrees. Here's a little anectdata from a friend. His daughter is in debt $60k for a degree in theater. Did well in college, but wants to "make it" in NYC. Now obviously the theater industry is very competitive, especially in NYC. So while trying to do various theatrical activities to get her foot in the door, she's…

I really think you need to get your biases in check. Pursuing one's dreams is exactly what the last couple generations have been raised to do. They didn't exit the womb feeling entitled. They were told since near birth they could be whatever they wanted to be. They were told they needed to go to college. They did exactly as they were told and wound up with little to show for it and an overwhelmingly difficult job mar…

I agree 100% with your reply, but I guess I've got a blind spot about my biases. In the case of my friend's daughter, she's aware of her options, realizes that she's not making any progress towards her dreams, but refuses to acknowledge the failed narrative. If she was thinking "WTF?" she'd be moving on and not dogwalking...

Re: The People's Bailout

#285

Post by tsotha »

mkr-hn wrote: post #240
eru wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. I never lived in the US. I came to Britain (from Germany) with neither car nor credit history. They let me rent a place, and I never had to buy a car. (Oh, and didn't have to worry about health insurance, either. But that's a slightly different topic.) I wonder how my move to Singapore will play out. But should I ever come to the US, I'll make sure I have plenty of money.

I've heard the US a great country to live in if you have plenty of money. It's so-so if you don't.

Where isn't that true?

Re: The People's Bailout

#286

Post by btilly »

tsotha wrote: post #264
btilly wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but he was talking about the majority of jobs. You're making the exact same logic error, but this time talking about majorities, so in addition to failing at logic you're failing at statistics. Let me point you again at the law student example. All jobs as a lawyer require law school. About 70% of people who get law degrees will successfully pass the bar, and get a high paying job they otherwise couldn't and be a…

>You're making the exact same logic error, but this time talking about majorities, so in addition to failing at logic you're failing at statistics. One of us is being stupid, but I don't think it's me. The assertion is college is necessary for a middle class lifestyle. What I'm saying is 1) it's not and 2) when you add up lost opportunity costs, direct costs, and interest on student debt many people (maybe even most)…

One of us is being stupid, but I don't think it's me.

You also have proven unable to parse English.

The assertion is college is necessary for a middle class lifestyle.

Your continued inability to parse English is getting old. Here, for the record, is the original assertion.

Not when the majority of jobs that create a vibrant middle class in the post-industrial United States require at least a college degree.

Now why do I say that you failed to parse this correctly? Because "majority" does not mean "all". So the majority these jobs could require a college degree but there could still be lots of them that don't require a college degree.

Going back to what you wrote...

Yes. Anyone who goes to law school right now is an idiot, unless that law school is Harvard or Yale. The 70% in your example are either lucky or have been shunted into jobs that don't require a law degree or they're working as lawyers and making less than they would have made teaching Social Studies to the local second graders. The number of newly minted lawyers far, far exceeds the number of jobs for newly minted lawyers.

Can you cite a source?

According to what I can find now, until 2009, law school had a fairly stable economic outlook. Then the bottom dropped out. Median starting income for newly graduated lawyers has dropped 35% since then. (See http://www.nalp.org/classof2011_salpressrel for a source.)

However stop and think for a second. Law school takes 3 years. People graduating this year into the dismal market entered in 2009, with decades of history of law being a good economic choice. The lifetime income for someone with a law degree averaged DOUBLE the lifetime income for someone with a bachelor's degree. In retrospect, the law degree was likely a mistake. But when they committed to it, based on the data that then existed, it looked like a good choice.

So, were all of the people who are walking around with useless newly minted law degrees demonstrating poor decision making abilities when they chose to do that? I don't really think so. They didn't spot the oncoming macro-economic train, but these things tend to be much clearer in hindsight than in advance. (I knew about the oncoming problem, but only because my brother was selling stuff to lawyers, and he told me how the financial crisis was impacting law firms.)

Re: The People's Bailout

#287

Post by tsotha »

RollingJubilee wrote: post #82
malandrew wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't OWS just hold it forever and not do anything with it? i.e. "Look I bought your debt, you don't have to pay me a penny for it ever, but I can't officially forgive you since to do so would subject you an income tax obligation. Just don't worry about it ever again and get on with your life."

The main problem with that is that we would be collecting assets that we would then have to pay taxes on. Better to destroy the debt all together.

You wouldn't have to pay taxes if the assets you collected were less than what you paid for debts. If they were greater, well, that would make you just another bill collector.

Re: The People's Bailout

#289

Post by lifeguard »

smsm42 wrote: post #265
potatolicious wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps not home ownership - but in many (most?) parts of this country a reliable vehicle is an absolute requirement for holding down a job. A bankrupt person, if anything, is in greatest need of a trustworthy car, and is also the most likely to require a loan to do so. There's also the notion of rent - people who've always had good credit don't really know how different renting is like for people who have bad credit…

I came into US with no credit too, and had absolutely no problem to rent. Actually, I had much more problem finding lenders willing to accept my pets than my credit (for some reason, most of the local apartments hate pets, no matter how small and harmless). Yes, they asked for security deposits (not exorbitant - 1-2 months, and many require it even with good credit), and yes, car loan I got was outrageously expensive…

BK, foreclosure of a home loan, and repossession of a car from a loan leave flags on one's credit file that are very different from no credit or even bad credit.

If a person with no credit history in the USA (like a naturalized alien) is added as an authorized user to an existing credit account the credit history of this account is 'cloned' to the new addition.

Re: The People's Bailout

#290

Post by lifeguard »

eru wrote: post #236
mkr-hn wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4763091

Thanks. I never lived in the US. I came to Britain (from Germany) with neither car nor credit history. They let me rent a place, and I never had to buy a car. (Oh, and didn't have to worry about health insurance, either. But that's a slightly different topic.) I wonder how my move to Singapore will play out. But should I ever come to the US, I'll make sure I have plenty of money.

Or have some good friends here in advance to help you :-)

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4764692

Post reply on HN