4 ms·

Because people with personal responsibility paid for themselves AND are now expected to pay for others through their taxes. Why should I be expected to pay for

by niij 7y ago

Because people with personal responsibility paid for themselves AND are now expected to pay for others through their taxes. Why should I be expected to pay for your poor financial decisions?

Accacin 7y ago
Honestly, this is the big difference I think in American and EU thinking (to be incredibly general). I am paying back my UK student loan, and if a party like Labour once again said they were going to make university tuition free again, I would vote for them in a heartbeat. I don't care that I'd still have to pay, I want my country to be better. To be a bit melodramatic, yours and my ancestors sacrificed a lot to be where we are now. I'm just glad the only thing I'm likely going to need to sacrifice is some extra tax.
- refurb 7y ago
  You're comparing different things. If you had just paid off your student loans by diligently saving and the Labour party said they'll forgive the debt of your classmates who partied it up and never paid back their loans would you feel the same?
  - Accacin 7y ago
    I get your point, but it doesn't work like that in the UK so your example wouldn't happen. However, if it did.. I don't think I'd be annoyed but that's hard to say until it happens. In some respects, it would actually work in a similar way though. In their statement, they said that they'd forgive the student debt of those currently studying, but not those who had already finished (like me). For this I can safely say that I'd still be incredibly happy. By the way, I'm not trying to paint American's in a negative light. I'm a big fan of America, but it is a difference as far as I can tell, although which line of thinking is right is incredibly hard to say.
    - refurb 7y ago
      The distinction between the two scenarios is important though, because if the US gov't was to institute changes to college where newly attending students got a break that earlier students didn't, sure you'd get pushback, but not nearly as much as just forgiving existing student loans. The US is more individualistic than the UK, but we're not entirely heartless bastards.
- niij 7y ago
  I see what you mean by trying to improve your own country. But consider this: college education is not for everyone. If someone doesn't decide to go to college and still makes a good living as a tradesman or even unskilled worker, why should they be taxed to subsidize someone else's college? Why not just tax less and let people make their own decisions with how the money they've earned is spent. Every time you create a new tax it's one less choice (freedom) someone has in their life.
  - Accacin 7y ago
    Good point. College (university for us!) is not for everyone, and I can't speak for America but I feel that we look down upon trades in the UK a little sometimes. Being a tradesman is a completely valid choice that I believe is equal with a more academic route. That being said, it's hard to blame the individual going to university if there career requires that and it's also a fact that a tradesman is probably going to be earning a lot more than a student for at least the period of time they're studying. I also believe (like I said before) that allowing people financial help to study improves the whole country, especially being that every family can afford to send their children so for myself I can justify this extra tax. Your point hasn't swayed me, but it has made me consider the 'other side' at least so thank you.
    - niij 7y ago
      > we look down upon trades in the UK a little sometimes. Being a tradesman is a completely valid choice that I believe is equal with a more academic route. Same here in the US, but you're right, it's an honorable job and nothing wrong with it. > allowing people financial help to study improves the whole country, especially being that every family can afford to send their children In the US we already have that as a system. See: FAFSA/Pell Grants. Those with low incomes already do receive free/subsidized college education. These "new" proposals say that _everyone_ regardless of income can get free money for college. So in that way it's really just a giveaway for the middle/upper class. Considering that, the argument that it will help the poor doesn't hold water for me. > Your point hasn't swayed me, but it has made me consider the 'other side' at least so thank you. Same here, appreciate debating with someone respectfully even if opinions are different.
mempko 7y ago
By personal responsibility, I'm guessing you mean saving and not getting into debt. It is rather strange that you propose everyone does this, since A) money IS debt. The money in your savings account, that you are so responsible with, is money that originated as a bank loan, or government debt. B) If everyone is responsible, then you end up with the paradox of thrift where you get a deflation spiral and economy tanks. So thank those who are being "irresponsible" for your savings, because without them you would have no income. If you want to know more about how money works, read the great resource provided by the Bank of England. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/m... Or watch this great video by David Graeber, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxJW7hl8oqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxJW7hl8oqM
- niij 7y ago
  Are you arguing that I should be forced to spend my money in a certain way else the government should take it away? Why is what I do with my own money any of your or the government's business? > money IS debt. The money in your savings account, that you are so responsible with, is money that originated as a bank loan, or government debt. You're going to need to explain a bit more here. Arguing that money that was _formerly_ debt is still debt when in my possession is gonna take some strong convincing :)
  - mempko 7y ago
    Did you check out the video? If you want more detail, read the link I posted from the bank England
    - niij 7y ago
      I honestly hadn't but just went back and watched it not. Interesting explanation there, thanks for sharing. So the point is, like you pointed out, money is just government debt. Let's say I pay for my education in cash directly to the university, without taking any private or public sector loans. Would that cause a "deflation spiral" as you put it? It's just bypassing a middleman that is unnecessary if I had saved that cash over time to be able to pay for the goods/service I'm receiving (in this case: an education). So, yes, while money may be government debt, I don't see how avoiding private/public loans would have negative economic impacts overall on society.
minikites 7y ago
Because that's how civilization operates. Why should I subsidize someone else's electric car? Why should I pay for firefighters even though my house has a very low risk of burning down? Why should I pay for a rehab clinic even though I'm not an addict? Because it makes society better off, that's why.
- niij 7y ago
  > Why should I subsidize someone else's electric car? You shouldn't have to, that's absurd! They can buy their own car :) > Why should I pay for firefighters even though my house has a very low risk of burning down? To protect the life and property of the entire community. This gets down to the point of being a necessity to protect a large group of people vs an individuals choices affecting _only_ themselves. > Why should I pay for a rehab clinic even though I'm not an addict? Debatable whether you should have to pay for this or not. But I would prioritize someone's life when it's on the line over a nicety like a college education. You can survive without a college education, just like you can survive without a subsidized Tesla.

by niij 7y ago

Because people with personal responsibility paid for themselves AND are now expected to pay for others through their taxes. Why should I be expected to pay for your poor financial decisions?

Accacin 7y ago

Honestly, this is the big difference I think in American and EU thinking (to be incredibly general). I am paying back my UK student loan, and if a party like Labour once again said they were going to make university tuition free again, I would vote for them in a heartbeat. I don't care that I'd still have to pay, I want my country to be better. To be a bit melodramatic, yours and my ancestors sacrificed a lot to be where we are now. I'm just glad the only thing I'm likely going to need to sacrifice is some extra tax.

refurb 7y ago
You're comparing different things. If you had just paid off your student loans by diligently saving and the Labour party said they'll forgive the debt of your classmates who partied it up and never paid back their loans would you feel the same?
- Accacin 7y ago
  I get your point, but it doesn't work like that in the UK so your example wouldn't happen. However, if it did.. I don't think I'd be annoyed but that's hard to say until it happens. In some respects, it would actually work in a similar way though. In their statement, they said that they'd forgive the student debt of those currently studying, but not those who had already finished (like me). For this I can safely say that I'd still be incredibly happy. By the way, I'm not trying to paint American's in a negative light. I'm a big fan of America, but it is a difference as far as I can tell, although which line of thinking is right is incredibly hard to say.
  - refurb 7y ago
    The distinction between the two scenarios is important though, because if the US gov't was to institute changes to college where newly attending students got a break that earlier students didn't, sure you'd get pushback, but not nearly as much as just forgiving existing student loans. The US is more individualistic than the UK, but we're not entirely heartless bastards.
niij 7y ago
I see what you mean by trying to improve your own country. But consider this: college education is not for everyone. If someone doesn't decide to go to college and still makes a good living as a tradesman or even unskilled worker, why should they be taxed to subsidize someone else's college? Why not just tax less and let people make their own decisions with how the money they've earned is spent. Every time you create a new tax it's one less choice (freedom) someone has in their life.
- Accacin 7y ago
  Good point. College (university for us!) is not for everyone, and I can't speak for America but I feel that we look down upon trades in the UK a little sometimes. Being a tradesman is a completely valid choice that I believe is equal with a more academic route. That being said, it's hard to blame the individual going to university if there career requires that and it's also a fact that a tradesman is probably going to be earning a lot more than a student for at least the period of time they're studying. I also believe (like I said before) that allowing people financial help to study improves the whole country, especially being that every family can afford to send their children so for myself I can justify this extra tax. Your point hasn't swayed me, but it has made me consider the 'other side' at least so thank you.
  - niij 7y ago
    > we look down upon trades in the UK a little sometimes. Being a tradesman is a completely valid choice that I believe is equal with a more academic route. Same here in the US, but you're right, it's an honorable job and nothing wrong with it. > allowing people financial help to study improves the whole country, especially being that every family can afford to send their children In the US we already have that as a system. See: FAFSA/Pell Grants. Those with low incomes already do receive free/subsidized college education. These "new" proposals say that _everyone_ regardless of income can get free money for college. So in that way it's really just a giveaway for the middle/upper class. Considering that, the argument that it will help the poor doesn't hold water for me. > Your point hasn't swayed me, but it has made me consider the 'other side' at least so thank you. Same here, appreciate debating with someone respectfully even if opinions are different.

mempko 7y ago

By personal responsibility, I'm guessing you mean saving and not getting into debt. It is rather strange that you propose everyone does this, since A) money IS debt. The money in your savings account, that you are so responsible with, is money that originated as a bank loan, or government debt. B) If everyone is responsible, then you end up with the paradox of thrift where you get a deflation spiral and economy tanks. So thank those who are being "irresponsible" for your savings, because without them you would have no income. If you want to know more about how money works, read the great resource provided by the Bank of England. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/m... Or watch this great video by David Graeber, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxJW7hl8oqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxJW7hl8oqM

niij 7y ago
Are you arguing that I should be forced to spend my money in a certain way else the government should take it away? Why is what I do with my own money any of your or the government's business? > money IS debt. The money in your savings account, that you are so responsible with, is money that originated as a bank loan, or government debt. You're going to need to explain a bit more here. Arguing that money that was _formerly_ debt is still debt when in my possession is gonna take some strong convincing :)
- mempko 7y ago
  Did you check out the video? If you want more detail, read the link I posted from the bank England
  - niij 7y ago
    I honestly hadn't but just went back and watched it not. Interesting explanation there, thanks for sharing. So the point is, like you pointed out, money is just government debt. Let's say I pay for my education in cash directly to the university, without taking any private or public sector loans. Would that cause a "deflation spiral" as you put it? It's just bypassing a middleman that is unnecessary if I had saved that cash over time to be able to pay for the goods/service I'm receiving (in this case: an education). So, yes, while money may be government debt, I don't see how avoiding private/public loans would have negative economic impacts overall on society.

minikites 7y ago

Because that's how civilization operates. Why should I subsidize someone else's electric car? Why should I pay for firefighters even though my house has a very low risk of burning down? Why should I pay for a rehab clinic even though I'm not an addict? Because it makes society better off, that's why.

niij 7y ago
> Why should I subsidize someone else's electric car? You shouldn't have to, that's absurd! They can buy their own car :) > Why should I pay for firefighters even though my house has a very low risk of burning down? To protect the life and property of the entire community. This gets down to the point of being a necessity to protect a large group of people vs an individuals choices affecting _only_ themselves. > Why should I pay for a rehab clinic even though I'm not an addict? Debatable whether you should have to pay for this or not. But I would prioritize someone's life when it's on the line over a nicety like a college education. You can survive without a college education, just like you can survive without a subsidized Tesla.