5 ms·

What exactly is the "punishment" here? Serious question, how are you negatively impacted by loan forgiveness? Anybody currently holding student debt is requir

by nr2x 5y ago

What exactly is the "punishment" here? Serious question, how are you negatively impacted by loan forgiveness? Anybody currently holding student debt is required to pay the US government an interest rate exceeding what the Fed gives banks. Student loan interest a tax on the poor levied by the US government. My wife and I have the same degree from NYU: her parents paid her tuition, I took out loans. Over time I pay more for the same degree because of interest. Furthermore, we already do wealth redistribution via corporate welfare of all varieties. There's countless subsidy programs for all manner of environmental harmful activities that will pass huge financial burden to my kid. A small fix to loan interest isn't much to ask.

dartharva 5y ago
The punishment is obvious: the opportunity cost you incur by paying student loans is too high. Those who paid their loans have lost money they could have used for other investments to build wealth. Now if you were to forgive current outstanding debts, it would be a punch in the gut to those who did pay off their loans. They had to work and go through much more pains, and missed several wealth-building opportunities they could have had if they were allowed to keep their money. It is an unfair disparity against those who were unfortunate enough to go to college a bit earlier and thus, a punishment.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  that's not punishment, that jealousy of someone else getting a windfall or relief. A real 'punishment' would set you to a worse position than you had before. If you are going to focus on other people getting windfall they don't deserve, there are much better places to focus your energies - I am sure anyone here has a few candidates, but in UK we had government award multimillion dollar contracts for COVID supplies to companies started a month ago, who copied their terms and conditions from a pizza delivery company.
  - TearsInTheRain 5y ago
    If you have two people in a system, subsidizing person A and keeping B the same is exactly the same as keeping A the same and taxing person B. Your changing everyone's relative place in society and whats more you are elevating the people that have behaved less responsibly
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      "subsidizing person A and keeping B the same is exactly the same as keeping A the same and taxing person B... Your changing everyone's relative place in society" I don't think this 'zero sum' view is helpful, but what I have a real problem with is when people only apply their 'beliefs' selectively - you have to logically consistent. If this is your view, surely you should be More offended about extremely rich people paying zero tax, getting government bailouts when they mess up, than you should be concerned about poor people being slightly less poor? Is this actually a view you believe in, or is it just an excuse to keep poor people down? This is like 'pro life' people not supporting healthcare, or 'freedom' libertarians supporting civil forfeiture and surveillance or 'personal responsibility' people making up excuses for why executives shouldn't be charged after they make a decision that kills several hundred people. "elevating the people that have behaved less responsibly" We don't actually know that, maybe person A was on track to pay off his student debt, and then someone in his family had cancer or got hit by a bus. Person A might actually be more responsible, being able to solely focus on your career is a privilege that some of us don't get
- nr2x 5y ago
  The boomers who went earlier went for a fraction of the price, had far more government assistance, then decided they didn't like paying tax and hauled the ladder up from under themselves and made their children and grandchildren take out loans. That is the "unfair" "punishment" if there is one.
parsimo2010 5y ago
I won't say this is a perfect argument, but I think the issue comes down to the fact that forgiving loans is incompatible with the common Puritanical view in America that hard work and delaying personal gratification are virtues. It's not that anyone is being punished but a non-equal distribution of wealth feels unfair, since a lot of people would have made different decisions if they had known that debt would be restructured or forgiven in some drastic way. There are a bunch of people that lived on tight budgets, or worked extra hours instead of taking on debt, or just didn't go to college at all. Those people delayed personal gratification with the expectation that they would be better off later. It is similar for the case where someone's parents paid for their college, their family took on a financial hardship and get no reward compared to families that didn't take on any burden and took out loans. You can imagine how unfair it feels to those people if they saw someone else get $100k in loans forgiven, but they receive nothing. Nobody got punished but someone else gets a leg up and the people that were being "virtuous" get nothing. And consider this other view: It's not a perfect analogy but imagine that the federal government decides to give $10k to every white man. Of course everyone would scream that was racist and sexist. But nobody is being punished by giving a reward to one race and gender and not the others. There are obviously issues with the analogy, but it might at least show another angle of why some people don't want others to get loan forgiveness when they get nothing.
- nr2x 5y ago
  Except the people who'd benefit the most from loan forgiveness are POC, so there's no need to float hypotheticals.
  - seneca 5y ago
    > Except the people who'd benefit the most from loan forgiveness are POC, so there's no need to float hypotheticals. This is such an incredibly lazy answer. Why reply if you're not going to even attempt to interact with the points put forward?
    - nr2x 5y ago
      It's a very legitimate answer, as the hypo was factually unsound.
meatsauce 5y ago
There is no such thing as "corporate welfare." The owners of corporations already pay more taxes than most of the so-called "working class." In fact, if you earned over $118,000 in a year, you pay 70% of the tax burden in a country where better than half of the adult residents pay no income tax at all. Owners of any corporations pay a variety of taxes, some paid regardless if you turned a profit, such as property tax and employment tax. They also pay state/fed income tax on profits, regulatory fees, and a host of other liabilities that get paid to the state. To wax on "corporate welfare" is to say you really don't know how it all works.

by nr2x 5y ago

dartharva 5y ago

The punishment is obvious: the opportunity cost you incur by paying student loans is too high. Those who paid their loans have lost money they could have used for other investments to build wealth. Now if you were to forgive current outstanding debts, it would be a punch in the gut to those who did pay off their loans. They had to work and go through much more pains, and missed several wealth-building opportunities they could have had if they were allowed to keep their money. It is an unfair disparity against those who were unfortunate enough to go to college a bit earlier and thus, a punishment.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
that's not punishment, that jealousy of someone else getting a windfall or relief. A real 'punishment' would set you to a worse position than you had before. If you are going to focus on other people getting windfall they don't deserve, there are much better places to focus your energies - I am sure anyone here has a few candidates, but in UK we had government award multimillion dollar contracts for COVID supplies to companies started a month ago, who copied their terms and conditions from a pizza delivery company.
- TearsInTheRain 5y ago
  If you have two people in a system, subsidizing person A and keeping B the same is exactly the same as keeping A the same and taxing person B. Your changing everyone's relative place in society and whats more you are elevating the people that have behaved less responsibly
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "subsidizing person A and keeping B the same is exactly the same as keeping A the same and taxing person B... Your changing everyone's relative place in society" I don't think this 'zero sum' view is helpful, but what I have a real problem with is when people only apply their 'beliefs' selectively - you have to logically consistent. If this is your view, surely you should be More offended about extremely rich people paying zero tax, getting government bailouts when they mess up, than you should be concerned about poor people being slightly less poor? Is this actually a view you believe in, or is it just an excuse to keep poor people down? This is like 'pro life' people not supporting healthcare, or 'freedom' libertarians supporting civil forfeiture and surveillance or 'personal responsibility' people making up excuses for why executives shouldn't be charged after they make a decision that kills several hundred people. "elevating the people that have behaved less responsibly" We don't actually know that, maybe person A was on track to pay off his student debt, and then someone in his family had cancer or got hit by a bus. Person A might actually be more responsible, being able to solely focus on your career is a privilege that some of us don't get
nr2x 5y ago
The boomers who went earlier went for a fraction of the price, had far more government assistance, then decided they didn't like paying tax and hauled the ladder up from under themselves and made their children and grandchildren take out loans. That is the "unfair" "punishment" if there is one.

parsimo2010 5y ago

I won't say this is a perfect argument, but I think the issue comes down to the fact that forgiving loans is incompatible with the common Puritanical view in America that hard work and delaying personal gratification are virtues. It's not that anyone is being punished but a non-equal distribution of wealth feels unfair, since a lot of people would have made different decisions if they had known that debt would be restructured or forgiven in some drastic way. There are a bunch of people that lived on tight budgets, or worked extra hours instead of taking on debt, or just didn't go to college at all. Those people delayed personal gratification with the expectation that they would be better off later. It is similar for the case where someone's parents paid for their college, their family took on a financial hardship and get no reward compared to families that didn't take on any burden and took out loans. You can imagine how unfair it feels to those people if they saw someone else get $100k in loans forgiven, but they receive nothing. Nobody got punished but someone else gets a leg up and the people that were being "virtuous" get nothing. And consider this other view: It's not a perfect analogy but imagine that the federal government decides to give $10k to every white man. Of course everyone would scream that was racist and sexist. But nobody is being punished by giving a reward to one race and gender and not the others. There are obviously issues with the analogy, but it might at least show another angle of why some people don't want others to get loan forgiveness when they get nothing.

nr2x 5y ago
Except the people who'd benefit the most from loan forgiveness are POC, so there's no need to float hypotheticals.
- seneca 5y ago
  > Except the people who'd benefit the most from loan forgiveness are POC, so there's no need to float hypotheticals. This is such an incredibly lazy answer. Why reply if you're not going to even attempt to interact with the points put forward?
  - nr2x 5y ago
    It's a very legitimate answer, as the hypo was factually unsound.

meatsauce 5y ago

There is no such thing as "corporate welfare." The owners of corporations already pay more taxes than most of the so-called "working class." In fact, if you earned over $118,000 in a year, you pay 70% of the tax burden in a country where better than half of the adult residents pay no income tax at all. Owners of any corporations pay a variety of taxes, some paid regardless if you turned a profit, such as property tax and employment tax. They also pay state/fed income tax on profits, regulatory fees, and a host of other liabilities that get paid to the state. To wax on "corporate welfare" is to say you really don't know how it all works.