3 ms·

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 f

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.

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.