31–40 of 49 posts
I have always paid all of my debts, including student loans. I think it is quite unfair that some will get off scot-free. What lesson does that teach?
So did I. I don't want others to have to go through with it. The lesson will be others will have money to spend on other things that will be more beneficial to me in the long run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can say that about anything. Fixing streets is regressive, it only benefits people with cars. Therefore we should not fix streets. It’s laughable to call student loan forgiveness “regressive”. The word “regressive” is supposed to be used for policies that benefit the wealthy people more than average people, not for policies that benefit average people more than low income people.
The concept of regressive and progressive taxes are well defined and have nothing to do with the usage of “regressive” and “progressive” in a political context.
Moreover using the term “regressive” to refer to a potential government expenditure that would primarily benefit average working people, as most expenditures should do, is in my view completely absurd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can say that about anything. Fixing streets is regressive, it only benefits people with cars. Therefore we should not fix streets. It’s laughable to call student loan forgiveness “regressive”. The word “regressive” is supposed to be used for policies that benefit the wealthy people more than average people, not for policies that benefit average people more than low income people.
You have inadvertently undermined your own argument using a perfect example. One of the most effective arguments in favor of gas taxes and road tolls is to mitigate the regressive nature of universal taxation for road building and maintenance. Because yes, "fixing the streets" is indeed a regressive tax burden for people who can't afford a car. > not for policies that benefit average people more than low income peopl…
Imagine for the sake of argument that there was a bumper year for vehicle / fuel tax and the tax generated multiplies more revenue than expected. Would the money be spent on diamond encrusted highways or would it instead be spent on other areas that are more in need? Cars are taxed because they can be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so change the bankruptcy laws. that doesn't require forgiving the loans.
This is the correct answer. Personal bankruptcy is the tool developed and refined for over a century to address exactly this problem. It should surprise nobody that the banking interests (and industry-adjacent politicians) who pushed so hard for student debtors to be uniquely deprived of their right to shed their debt through the courts are now pushing for taxpayers to repay their unsecured loans.
>But that’s because such measures exclude the very asset the person borrowed to buy—an education that increases lifetime earnings. That’s like assessing a homeowner’s wealth by counting their mortgage balance but not the value of their home. The value of a higher education that it's sold to young people with is the income it allegedly brings in. If that's the case someone uses the product and their income goes up the…
I think that’s a defensible argument, but it’s regressive in a different way from the status quo.
There’s no need to measure anything. The problem with student loans is qualitative. Banks are allowed to make unsecured loans and the borrowers can’t usefully declare bankruptcy. Colleges have every reason to raise prices and lenders have no skin in the game. It isn’t any more complicated, and no amount of data analysis can possibly refute this.
Letting a bank choose the interest rate based on your zip code would allow banks to predict which families will remain rich and that would be a self fulfilling continuation of current class distinctions in a system where they are allowed to do that.
I have always paid all of my debts, including student loans. I think it is quite unfair that some will get off scot-free. What lesson does that teach?
So did I. I don't want others to have to go through with it. The lesson will be others will have money to spend on other things that will be more beneficial to me in the long run.
>But that’s because such measures exclude the very asset the person borrowed to buy—an education that increases lifetime earnings. That’s like assessing a homeowner’s wealth by counting their mortgage balance but not the value of their home. The value of a higher education that it's sold to young people with is the income it allegedly brings in. If that's the case someone uses the product and their income goes up the…
If you think it’s fraudulent for the federal government to give a 22yo a $120,000 loan for a Master of Fine Arts program in theater, then you have to argue that such loans should stop. Only the rich or the beneficiaries of private charity will be able to access MFA programs—or perhaps the taxpayer should make degree programs like that “free”? I think that’s a defensible argument, but it’s regressive in a different wa…
This isn’t fully fleshed out, but the government could set a cap in loans based on anticipated the future earnings. Johnny gets into Med School and wants a $400K loan? Great! Iowa Central College wants to charge $200K for a dance major? Good luck finding students to enroll!
This also has the benefit of placing downward pressure on college tuition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pay close attention to verse 15. Who's money are we talking about here?
As I said, the government plays the role of the landowner. Perhaps you have the mistaken belief that the money you pay in taxes is still your money and therefore you don’t believe the government can play the role of the landowner.