5 ms·

> Bernie essentially wants to forcibly take money from everyone who was financially responsible enough to save and pay off their loans early Bernie wants to ta

> Bernie essentially wants to forcibly take money from everyone who was financially responsible enough to save and pay off their loans early Bernie wants to take tax money and work out what the best thing to spend it on is. It's disingenuous to imply it's any more taken by force than taxes already are. Significant portions of your taxes already go towards people who have, by your definitions, behaved irresponsibly. I don't know whether this is the best use of that money -- whether there's something else that would have much better effects on welfare and economics in general. I also don't have any student loan debt from my university degree, though it's because I grew up in a country that doesn't charge money for education. The system of being unable to discharge student loan debt via bankruptcy seems brazenly corrupt, though, such that demolishing the whole thing may be an appropriate response.

jquery 7y ago
>I grew up in a country that doesn't charge money for education. Your country almost certainly does charge for education, you're just shielded from the immediate cost. >The system of being unable to discharge student loan debt via bankruptcy seems brazenly corrupt, though, such that demolishing the whole thing may be an appropriate response. Alternatively, going forward we could allow the discharging of student debt in bankruptcy with the knowledge that this would prevent many useless degrees from being funded and correspondingly would result in a large decrease in higher education spending. I'm fully in favor. For far too many people college is merely an extended adolescence and creates perverse signaling issues when it comes to getting a good job. As a nation, we should be more mindful of the degrees we decide to fund and the amounts dedicated to such degrees. Your nation, which "doesn't charge money for education," is almost certainly doing this.
- omnimus 7y ago
  "many useless degrees" is very thin ice to walk on. If there are people wanting to learn something then it's not useless. Looking at it from economical standpoint only is just very narrow view. Education is not training for a job. There is value in knowledge. Even if you think only about economy it's very hard to predict what will be profitable. Dont forget that if someone is studying "useless degree" than it's enough burden to know you might not get job in that field. I think it's wonderful if anyone has a chance to have a try at higher education. Also as many countries show education doesn't have to be expensive and putting financial limits on them keeps them efficient.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    > "many useless degrees" is very thin ice to walk on. If there are people wanting to learn something then it's not useless. Maybe so, but it's also not something I'm willing to pay for or subsidize as a tax payer. Sitting around reading books all day would also be enriching but no one is claiming we should pay people to do that with tax dollars.
    - ptah 7y ago
      i can't think of a better way to spend tax tbh
      - malvosenior 7y ago
        Public transit? Functioning infrastructure? Lowering taxes and letting people keep their hard earned money? Paying for other people's entertainment is pretty much the lowest item on my list and I dare say it should be self funded 100% of the time.
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        Infrastructure spending is worthwhile, but it still has "bridges to nowhere". Similarly, education is worthwhile, but it also has "degrees to nowhere". Not all degrees for all people are worth their cost.
        cjbprime 7y ago
        Even if I agreed that some degrees are worth less to humanity, I'd still want to fund all of them, because I don't know (and don't think you know) which ones are which.
        ptah 7y ago
        there is no way of telling which degree would lead to progress. Steve Jobs famously studied calligraphy after dropping out but still "auditing" classes. if he didn't study "useless" courses effectively tuition free, apple would never have come to pass.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> Bernie wants to take tax money and work out what the best thing to spend it on is. Bernie might leave me the money and let me work that out for myself. I mean, look, I get that we actually need a government, and that we fund it by paying taxes. But every time someone like Bernie comes up with some grand new thing for the government to do, they take more money from me and from you to do it with. (Yeah, I know, "we're only going to take money from other people. That never actually works.) Government programs aren't free. They cost you money. So the question I have for people, when I hear something like Bernie's grand ideas, is this: Given that you have to pay for it, how much more government do you really want?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- cjbprime 7y ago
  Having the education and healthcare industries being in the middle of death spirals where costs increase every year and effectiveness decreases costs me money too. Fixing either sounds like a better use of taxes than whatever the $10Tn deficit increase under Trump is supposed to be achieving.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Do you think that Bernie's proposal is going to result in more money being thrown at education, or less? I presume more. (If it's free to them, more will decide to attend; the schools will charge the same as they do.) Education is in a death spiral where costs increase and effectiveness decreases. Do you think throwing more money at the universities will make that better, or worse?
    - cjbprime 7y ago
      I'm not sure; it depends on the specifics of the proposal, and especially on what happens to student loan debt which does not exist yet, and like you say, how public universities charge the government once education is made free. I agree that whether it's a good idea depends on that answer. I'm rejecting a stronger statement you made, about how any government program is suspect "given you have to pay for it". In the cases of education and healthcare, it seems to me that there has been a decrease of governmental involvement (compared to other nations, if you like, or even internally to our own nation in the case where bankruptcy discharge became disallowed) that should not have happened, and that decrease is costing dramatic amounts of money. You can't tell whether a policy is a good idea just based on whether it expands or contracts the role of government. We can be suspicious of government under-involvement too.

jquery 7y ago

>I grew up in a country that doesn't charge money for education. Your country almost certainly does charge for education, you're just shielded from the immediate cost. >The system of being unable to discharge student loan debt via bankruptcy seems brazenly corrupt, though, such that demolishing the whole thing may be an appropriate response. Alternatively, going forward we could allow the discharging of student debt in bankruptcy with the knowledge that this would prevent many useless degrees from being funded and correspondingly would result in a large decrease in higher education spending. I'm fully in favor. For far too many people college is merely an extended adolescence and creates perverse signaling issues when it comes to getting a good job. As a nation, we should be more mindful of the degrees we decide to fund and the amounts dedicated to such degrees. Your nation, which "doesn't charge money for education," is almost certainly doing this.

omnimus 7y ago
"many useless degrees" is very thin ice to walk on. If there are people wanting to learn something then it's not useless. Looking at it from economical standpoint only is just very narrow view. Education is not training for a job. There is value in knowledge. Even if you think only about economy it's very hard to predict what will be profitable. Dont forget that if someone is studying "useless degree" than it's enough burden to know you might not get job in that field. I think it's wonderful if anyone has a chance to have a try at higher education. Also as many countries show education doesn't have to be expensive and putting financial limits on them keeps them efficient.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  > "many useless degrees" is very thin ice to walk on. If there are people wanting to learn something then it's not useless. Maybe so, but it's also not something I'm willing to pay for or subsidize as a tax payer. Sitting around reading books all day would also be enriching but no one is claiming we should pay people to do that with tax dollars.
  - ptah 7y ago
    i can't think of a better way to spend tax tbh
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      Public transit? Functioning infrastructure? Lowering taxes and letting people keep their hard earned money? Paying for other people's entertainment is pretty much the lowest item on my list and I dare say it should be self funded 100% of the time.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      Infrastructure spending is worthwhile, but it still has "bridges to nowhere". Similarly, education is worthwhile, but it also has "degrees to nowhere". Not all degrees for all people are worth their cost.
      - cjbprime 7y ago
        Even if I agreed that some degrees are worth less to humanity, I'd still want to fund all of them, because I don't know (and don't think you know) which ones are which.
      - ptah 7y ago
        there is no way of telling which degree would lead to progress. Steve Jobs famously studied calligraphy after dropping out but still "auditing" classes. if he didn't study "useless" courses effectively tuition free, apple would never have come to pass.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

> Bernie wants to take tax money and work out what the best thing to spend it on is. Bernie might leave me the money and let me work that out for myself. I mean, look, I get that we actually need a government, and that we fund it by paying taxes. But every time someone like Bernie comes up with some grand new thing for the government to do, they take more money from me and from you to do it with. (Yeah, I know, "we're only going to take money from other people. That never actually works.) Government programs aren't free. They cost you money. So the question I have for people, when I hear something like Bernie's grand ideas, is this: Given that you have to pay for it, how much more government do you really want?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cjbprime 7y ago
Having the education and healthcare industries being in the middle of death spirals where costs increase every year and effectiveness decreases costs me money too. Fixing either sounds like a better use of taxes than whatever the $10Tn deficit increase under Trump is supposed to be achieving.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Do you think that Bernie's proposal is going to result in more money being thrown at education, or less? I presume more. (If it's free to them, more will decide to attend; the schools will charge the same as they do.) Education is in a death spiral where costs increase and effectiveness decreases. Do you think throwing more money at the universities will make that better, or worse?
  - cjbprime 7y ago
    I'm not sure; it depends on the specifics of the proposal, and especially on what happens to student loan debt which does not exist yet, and like you say, how public universities charge the government once education is made free. I agree that whether it's a good idea depends on that answer. I'm rejecting a stronger statement you made, about how any government program is suspect "given you have to pay for it". In the cases of education and healthcare, it seems to me that there has been a decrease of governmental involvement (compared to other nations, if you like, or even internally to our own nation in the case where bankruptcy discharge became disallowed) that should not have happened, and that decrease is costing dramatic amounts of money. You can't tell whether a policy is a good idea just based on whether it expands or contracts the role of government. We can be suspicious of government under-involvement too.