4 ms·

This kind of excessive fixation on perfect fairness is exactly what got us into this mess. They thought they could help the poor attend college by giving them g

This kind of excessive fixation on perfect fairness is exactly what got us into this mess. They thought they could help the poor attend college by giving them grants, then the middle class would have loans, and the rich had to pay their own way. Then it turned out that both the poor and the middle class had to take out loans because grants were too expensive, and the "rich" were fine anyway. Here's a crazy thought: if these debt holders are so well-off, why haven't they paid off their debts yet? Being in debt is a huge psychological burden, and forces people to choose high-paying jobs in expensive areas (which makes them appear to be well-off), instead of doing work that is more meaningful and socially beneficial. It's good to remember in these situations that the perfect is the enemy of the good, and what Sanders is proposing has the advantage of maximum simplicity. If you listen to the advice of perfectionists like David Leonhardt, you're going to neither eat nor have your cake.

rayiner 7y ago
It's not a matter of "perfect fairness" versus "workable compromise." Sanders' proposal epitomizes everything that's wrong with progressive liberals' attempts to implement a welfare state. While everyone else in the developed world treats middle and upper middle class people as the benefactor class, people like Sanders are convinced that the kid who took $150,000 in loans to attend a liberal arts college and now makes $80,000 a year as a journalist is the one entitled to welfare. This is a fundamentally flawed, unfair, and unprecedented approach to building a welfare state. That is why you hear about free college, like Germany, and not one peep about what Germany's income tax brackets look like: http://www.worldwide-tax.com/germany/germany_tax.asp http://www.worldwide-tax.com/germany/germany_tax.asp Tax % Tax Base (EUR) 0 Up to 9,000 14% 9,001-54,949 42% 54,950-260,532 45% 260,533 and over You see, in Germany, the guy making $80,000 is treated as a benefactor. He pays the 42% marginal income tax, 19% VAT, 7.5% social insurance contribution, etc. He doesn't get a $2.2 trillion windfall.
- jqgatsby 7y ago
  Is it the case that you are coming at this from a point of view that is opposed to progressive liberalism in general? That would have been helpful to mention up front, because the article you cite is actually arguing from the view of Sanders' proposal being insufficiently progressive. It seems disingenuous to me to cite it without clarifying that your own reasons for opposing the proposal are completely different.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 7y ago
    The article criticizes Sanders' proposal for allocating a large government benefit disproportionately to the middle class. I'm criticizing the proposal for the same reason. My point about taxes is the flip side of the same criticism. "Progressive liberals" view the upper middle class as a marginalized class that should receive government benefits, not a privileged class that should pay for them. That's why Sanders' proposed tax brackets are the same as Trump's until above $250,000. > Income bracket Tax Lower limit Upper limit Rate $0 – $18,450 10% $18,451 – $74,900 15% <--- German 42% rate starts here $74,901 – $151,200 25% $151,201 – $230,450 28% $230,451 – $250,000 33% $250,001 – $500,000 37% $500,001 – $2,000,000 43% $2,000,001 – $10,000,000 48% $10,000,001 – 52% Put differently, upper middle class "progressive liberals" only believe in a progressive system to the extent they are on the receiving end of the welfare system. So that someone who paid $100,000 for college and has a $100,000 job in New York is treated as the proper recipient of government welfare, at the expense of those above them. But taxing that guy like the privileged class, to support the people at the bottom who truly need it, is off the table.
    - jqgatsby 7y ago
      Your example of the guy who has $100K in student loans and is making a $100K salary in New York is a good example, but I think we very much disagree on how he should be treated. If he's living in NYC, his take-home is about $68k after taxes and he's laying out $3500/month in rent for a one bedroom and paying $1k/month for the loans. That leaves him $1100/month for utilities, medical, and, you know, food if he wants to eat. I know there are plenty of people who are worse off, but this guy is working a non-trivial job just to tread water. Why do you have so little sympathy for him?
      - rayiner 7y ago
        Because (1) he's objectively well off, having a one bedroom apartment to himself in New York itself being a sign of prosperity and privilege; and (2) because he's around the 90th percentile income level, and if we don't tax him heavily we cannot afford an expansive welfare state. People in the top 25% but outside the top 1% earn half of all income, $5 trillion, 2.5x as much as the top 1%. You need high taxes on that group to support an expansive welfare state. In Germany, Mr. NYC would be taking home $57,000, and he'd pay 19% VAT on cocktails in Munich.

rayiner 7y ago

It's not a matter of "perfect fairness" versus "workable compromise." Sanders' proposal epitomizes everything that's wrong with progressive liberals' attempts to implement a welfare state. While everyone else in the developed world treats middle and upper middle class people as the benefactor class, people like Sanders are convinced that the kid who took $150,000 in loans to attend a liberal arts college and now makes $80,000 a year as a journalist is the one entitled to welfare. This is a fundamentally flawed, unfair, and unprecedented approach to building a welfare state. That is why you hear about free college, like Germany, and not one peep about what Germany's income tax brackets look like: http://www.worldwide-tax.com/germany/germany_tax.asp http://www.worldwide-tax.com/germany/germany_tax.asp Tax % Tax Base (EUR) 0 Up to 9,000 14% 9,001-54,949 42% 54,950-260,532 45% 260,533 and over You see, in Germany, the guy making $80,000 is treated as a benefactor. He pays the 42% marginal income tax, 19% VAT, 7.5% social insurance contribution, etc. He doesn't get a $2.2 trillion windfall.

jqgatsby 7y ago
Is it the case that you are coming at this from a point of view that is opposed to progressive liberalism in general? That would have been helpful to mention up front, because the article you cite is actually arguing from the view of Sanders' proposal being insufficiently progressive. It seems disingenuous to me to cite it without clarifying that your own reasons for opposing the proposal are completely different.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 7y ago
  The article criticizes Sanders' proposal for allocating a large government benefit disproportionately to the middle class. I'm criticizing the proposal for the same reason. My point about taxes is the flip side of the same criticism. "Progressive liberals" view the upper middle class as a marginalized class that should receive government benefits, not a privileged class that should pay for them. That's why Sanders' proposed tax brackets are the same as Trump's until above $250,000. > Income bracket Tax Lower limit Upper limit Rate $0 – $18,450 10% $18,451 – $74,900 15% <--- German 42% rate starts here $74,901 – $151,200 25% $151,201 – $230,450 28% $230,451 – $250,000 33% $250,001 – $500,000 37% $500,001 – $2,000,000 43% $2,000,001 – $10,000,000 48% $10,000,001 – 52% Put differently, upper middle class "progressive liberals" only believe in a progressive system to the extent they are on the receiving end of the welfare system. So that someone who paid $100,000 for college and has a $100,000 job in New York is treated as the proper recipient of government welfare, at the expense of those above them. But taxing that guy like the privileged class, to support the people at the bottom who truly need it, is off the table.
  - jqgatsby 7y ago
    Your example of the guy who has $100K in student loans and is making a $100K salary in New York is a good example, but I think we very much disagree on how he should be treated. If he's living in NYC, his take-home is about $68k after taxes and he's laying out $3500/month in rent for a one bedroom and paying $1k/month for the loans. That leaves him $1100/month for utilities, medical, and, you know, food if he wants to eat. I know there are plenty of people who are worse off, but this guy is working a non-trivial job just to tread water. Why do you have so little sympathy for him?
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Because (1) he's objectively well off, having a one bedroom apartment to himself in New York itself being a sign of prosperity and privilege; and (2) because he's around the 90th percentile income level, and if we don't tax him heavily we cannot afford an expansive welfare state. People in the top 25% but outside the top 1% earn half of all income, $5 trillion, 2.5x as much as the top 1%. You need high taxes on that group to support an expansive welfare state. In Germany, Mr. NYC would be taking home $57,000, and he'd pay 19% VAT on cocktails in Munich.