6 ms·

>Bernie essentially wants to forcibly take money from everyone who was financially responsible "Financially responsible" has become a euphemism for "rich and a

>Bernie essentially wants to forcibly take money from everyone who was financially responsible "Financially responsible" has become a euphemism for "rich and assumed to be responsible". I know a bunch of people who are not particularly responsible with their money (splurging) but they are beneficiaries of a lot of unearned income (interest, dividends, rent) and I have yet to hear a coherent argument for why this unearned income shouldn't be taken away and used to fund the kind of education that improves the overall wellbeing of society. This is the point where somebody tells me that those people don't have enough money to fund this kind of thing (bullshit), or that Bernie won't target them he'll target you (bullshit) or that if you tax them they'll just run away to Panama (there was a study that demonstrated that when their taxes are jacked up they didn't even run away from New York to New Jersey).

aaomidi 7y ago
This is extremely true. Financially responsible is also just "privileged." They don't understand how different the state of primary education in the US is. Two school districts within 20 miles of each other are wildly different. 1. https://www.philasd.org/ https://www.philasd.org/ 2. https://www.lmsd.org/ https://www.lmsd.org/
cloakandswagger 7y ago
It's much easier to rob someone when you convince yourself that they didn't actually earn what they have. This us vs them reductionism is seen in the early days of any communist system (the mass killings come a bit later)
- aaomidi 7y ago
  Ah yes, communism. This isn't us vs them - this is us vs... us. Everyone should want to allow people to access education.
  - cloakandswagger 7y ago
    >I know a bunch of people who are not particularly responsible with their money (splurging) but they are beneficiaries of a lot of unearned income (interest, dividends, rent) and I have yet to hear a coherent argument for why this unearned income shouldn't be taken away and used to fund the kind of education that improves the overall wellbeing of society. This is the point where somebody tells me that those people don't have enough money to fund this kind of thing (bullshit), or that Bernie won't target them he'll target you (bullshit) or that if you tax them they'll just run away to Panama (there was a study that demonstrated that when their taxes are jacked up they didn't even run away from New York to New Jersey). Emphasis mine
    - burfog 7y ago
      Calling the income "unearned" doesn't make it unearned. It doesn't make people any less deserving of keeping what rightfully belongs to them. At some point in the past, a person (possibly an ancestor) took risks to create wealth. Part of the motivation is to later have an easy retirement or to support one's children. You'd kill that motivation, causing people to avoid the risks which would no longer create wealth, and thus prevent things like start-ups.
  - Macross8299 7y ago
    >Everyone should want to allow people to access education. Why?
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. They're highly repetitive, therefore predictable, therefore off topic here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
gdix 7y ago
Coherent argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km9OCw3f5w4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km9OCw3f5w4
Macross8299 7y ago
So the existence of financially irresponsible rich kids somehow disproves the idea that it's possible to pay back debt if you act financially responsible by running a sensible budget and cutting expenses?
- pytester 7y ago
  It's possible for some; not for others. This isn't about what's possible, though, it's about what's fair. It's treating the "right to untaxed unearned income entitlements" like interest, dividends and rent as intrinsically more fair ("financially responsible") than free education that bothers me.
  - snikeris 7y ago
    Interest, dividends, and rent are all taxed in the U.S. While we're on the topic of fairness...what about those people who will not go to college or send their kids there? Is it fair that they're forced to pay for other people's education?
baddox 7y ago
Of course some people fail to consider the privilege of family wealth, but wouldn’t student debt forgiveness also hugely benefit (perhaps unfairly) people with that privilege? I suspect that students with family wealth have considerably more student loan debt on average, because (among other reasons) they correctly judged that their family wealth would be a safety net for their future student loan debt. I suspect that many students with less family wealth tend to take on less student loan debt, even if they would be accepted to the same college education opportunities. I would call this “financial responsibility,” and I would consider a blanket student debt forgiveness to be quite unfair to them.
- pytester 7y ago
  >wouldn’t student debt forgiveness also hugely benefit (perhaps unfairly) people with that privilege? The last thing these people want is meritocracy, because it forces them into competition with poorer people for the most prestigious and high status jobs. If not having to worry about graduating with a crippling debt load is a privilege everybody has rather than a privileged elite, then the competition that privileged elite faces is greater. >I suspect that many students with less family wealth tend to take on less student loan debt, even if they would be accepted to the same college education opportunities. I would call this “financial responsibility,” Then you are also using "financial responsibility" as a euphemism for rich.
  - baddox 7y ago
    > Then you are also using "financial responsibility" as a euphemism for rich. I am saying the opposite. The financially responsible ones I was talking about are the less wealthy people who choose to take on less debt because it would be a huge risk.
    - pytester 7y ago
      You are lauding the "financial responsibility" of 18 year olds taking what it usually the losing side of an enormous lifetime financial gamble that they are forced into? You're arguing that choosing tails on a bent coin is the "right" choice? Just to be clear: 1) college debt is enormous 2) on balance it is worth the risk given future earning potential 3) it's not clear to the average person let alone the average 18 year old whether the gamble is correct.
povertyworld 7y ago
You post on a forum of rich techbros and you don't have any stocks that pay dividends? I make 20k a year, and I have dividend income, oh, and I paid off my student loans. Why bother being responsible if the government is just going to take away my savings/investments and give it to people who went to colleges they couldn't afford?
Simulacra 7y ago
I agree with one small point: Rent? Do you mean rental income? Because I feel like if a person can buy a place and then rent it out, that is an opportunity earned and converted into income. My husband and I own two rental properties, which took us about 11 years to acquire. We get decent rental income out of it but it took a lot of time and work to get to that point. I think we earned that income.

aaomidi 7y ago

This is extremely true. Financially responsible is also just "privileged." They don't understand how different the state of primary education in the US is. Two school districts within 20 miles of each other are wildly different. 1. https://www.philasd.org/ https://www.philasd.org/ 2. https://www.lmsd.org/ https://www.lmsd.org/

cloakandswagger 7y ago

It's much easier to rob someone when you convince yourself that they didn't actually earn what they have. This us vs them reductionism is seen in the early days of any communist system (the mass killings come a bit later)

aaomidi 7y ago
Ah yes, communism. This isn't us vs them - this is us vs... us. Everyone should want to allow people to access education.
- cloakandswagger 7y ago
  >I know a bunch of people who are not particularly responsible with their money (splurging) but they are beneficiaries of a lot of unearned income (interest, dividends, rent) and I have yet to hear a coherent argument for why this unearned income shouldn't be taken away and used to fund the kind of education that improves the overall wellbeing of society. This is the point where somebody tells me that those people don't have enough money to fund this kind of thing (bullshit), or that Bernie won't target them he'll target you (bullshit) or that if you tax them they'll just run away to Panama (there was a study that demonstrated that when their taxes are jacked up they didn't even run away from New York to New Jersey). Emphasis mine
  - burfog 7y ago
    Calling the income "unearned" doesn't make it unearned. It doesn't make people any less deserving of keeping what rightfully belongs to them. At some point in the past, a person (possibly an ancestor) took risks to create wealth. Part of the motivation is to later have an easy retirement or to support one's children. You'd kill that motivation, causing people to avoid the risks which would no longer create wealth, and thus prevent things like start-ups.
- Macross8299 7y ago
  >Everyone should want to allow people to access education. Why?
dang 7y ago
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. They're highly repetitive, therefore predictable, therefore off topic here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

gdix 7y ago

Coherent argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km9OCw3f5w4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km9OCw3f5w4

Macross8299 7y ago

So the existence of financially irresponsible rich kids somehow disproves the idea that it's possible to pay back debt if you act financially responsible by running a sensible budget and cutting expenses?

pytester 7y ago
It's possible for some; not for others. This isn't about what's possible, though, it's about what's fair. It's treating the "right to untaxed unearned income entitlements" like interest, dividends and rent as intrinsically more fair ("financially responsible") than free education that bothers me.
- snikeris 7y ago
  Interest, dividends, and rent are all taxed in the U.S. While we're on the topic of fairness...what about those people who will not go to college or send their kids there? Is it fair that they're forced to pay for other people's education?

baddox 7y ago

Of course some people fail to consider the privilege of family wealth, but wouldn’t student debt forgiveness also hugely benefit (perhaps unfairly) people with that privilege? I suspect that students with family wealth have considerably more student loan debt on average, because (among other reasons) they correctly judged that their family wealth would be a safety net for their future student loan debt. I suspect that many students with less family wealth tend to take on less student loan debt, even if they would be accepted to the same college education opportunities. I would call this “financial responsibility,” and I would consider a blanket student debt forgiveness to be quite unfair to them.

pytester 7y ago
>wouldn’t student debt forgiveness also hugely benefit (perhaps unfairly) people with that privilege? The last thing these people want is meritocracy, because it forces them into competition with poorer people for the most prestigious and high status jobs. If not having to worry about graduating with a crippling debt load is a privilege everybody has rather than a privileged elite, then the competition that privileged elite faces is greater. >I suspect that many students with less family wealth tend to take on less student loan debt, even if they would be accepted to the same college education opportunities. I would call this “financial responsibility,” Then you are also using "financial responsibility" as a euphemism for rich.
- baddox 7y ago
  > Then you are also using "financial responsibility" as a euphemism for rich. I am saying the opposite. The financially responsible ones I was talking about are the less wealthy people who choose to take on less debt because it would be a huge risk.
  - pytester 7y ago
    You are lauding the "financial responsibility" of 18 year olds taking what it usually the losing side of an enormous lifetime financial gamble that they are forced into? You're arguing that choosing tails on a bent coin is the "right" choice? Just to be clear: 1) college debt is enormous 2) on balance it is worth the risk given future earning potential 3) it's not clear to the average person let alone the average 18 year old whether the gamble is correct.

povertyworld 7y ago

You post on a forum of rich techbros and you don't have any stocks that pay dividends? I make 20k a year, and I have dividend income, oh, and I paid off my student loans. Why bother being responsible if the government is just going to take away my savings/investments and give it to people who went to colleges they couldn't afford?

Simulacra 7y ago

I agree with one small point: Rent? Do you mean rental income? Because I feel like if a person can buy a place and then rent it out, that is an opportunity earned and converted into income. My husband and I own two rental properties, which took us about 11 years to acquire. We get decent rental income out of it but it took a lot of time and work to get to that point. I think we earned that income.