3 ms·

Degree holders are absolutely in the upper tier of society. They earn more money and have more wealth. You don’t think the bottom 80% views the top 20% as “uppe

by rank0 4y ago

Degree holders are absolutely in the upper tier of society. They earn more money and have more wealth. You don’t think the bottom 80% views the top 20% as “upper class”? We’re spending hundreds of billions of debt relief here. That money could’ve gone towards medical debt, affordable housing, welfare expansion…etc. Instead a one time payment is going out to college graduates without tackling core issues like inability to refinance, or skyrocketing tuition. And again, tuition prices become inflated because of all these artificial federally guaranteed loans. This isn’t about helping workers…it’s about winning votes. Neither party gives a shit about the working class.

feet 4y ago
I think you missed my point about dividing the working class Capital owners want us to be angry about things like this because it prevents progress for workers. Nearly everyone who has a degree is a worker. Instead of being angry about how the system fundamentally operates in favor of those who own capital, we squabble over crap like this. I'm not saying there isn't a problem with tuition costs, there absolutely is
- rank0 4y ago
  Ya know I bet we even have a lot of overlapping opinions. It seems I just have a wider definition of “capital holders” than you do. For example there’s tons of subsidies to the upper middle class that I think should be eliminated. Examples are mortgage interest deductions, homestead exceptions, property tax deductions, long term capital gains…etc. In my book the recent student debt forgiveness is just like those other things, although I admit they’re not as egregious as the carried interest rule, which was preserved in the inflation reduction act by lobbying efforts. For the most part I agree with your point that our system is setup to benefit asset owners. It’s awful and needs to be stopped (even if I’m a beneficiary and take full advantage)
  - feet 4y ago
    Capital owners means those who purely derive their income from the capital and property they own. If someone works for a wage as their primary income, meaning they require it to survive, in 95%+ of cases they are workers.
    - rank0 4y ago
      That’s a bit ridiculous and it’s entirely your own definition. A FAANG engineer who makes 300k in salary and owns millions in securities and real estate is absolutely still a “capital owner” or upper class or whatever you wanna call it. The presence of a salary does not preclude someone from owning capital. The basis for almost everyone’s retirement is US equities and property.
      - feet 4y ago
        >meaning they require it to survive That is the differentiating factor. People can move into being capital owners sure, but it is extremely rare If someone can quit their job and survive off of capital gains while not being homeless, they would be considered a capital owner
        rank0 4y ago
        Not even trying to be confrontational here, and I appreciate the conversation. My 65 year old father maxed out his 401k for 35 years working his ass off. He's also set to receive a government pension from ~15 years working in the public sector. When he retires in a few years, would you lump him into this elite ruling class of "capital owner"? He will be indeed living off capital gains without a salary. He will certainly not be homeless and even lives in a nice home. I truly cannot understand how someone in that position is supposed to be the enemy of American workers...
        feet 4y ago
        No, he doesn't live off of capital gains purely from his assets. A 401k will be drained through retirement and a pension is not capital gains.

by rank0 4y ago

feet 4y ago

I think you missed my point about dividing the working class Capital owners want us to be angry about things like this because it prevents progress for workers. Nearly everyone who has a degree is a worker. Instead of being angry about how the system fundamentally operates in favor of those who own capital, we squabble over crap like this. I'm not saying there isn't a problem with tuition costs, there absolutely is

rank0 4y ago
Ya know I bet we even have a lot of overlapping opinions. It seems I just have a wider definition of “capital holders” than you do. For example there’s tons of subsidies to the upper middle class that I think should be eliminated. Examples are mortgage interest deductions, homestead exceptions, property tax deductions, long term capital gains…etc. In my book the recent student debt forgiveness is just like those other things, although I admit they’re not as egregious as the carried interest rule, which was preserved in the inflation reduction act by lobbying efforts. For the most part I agree with your point that our system is setup to benefit asset owners. It’s awful and needs to be stopped (even if I’m a beneficiary and take full advantage)
- feet 4y ago
  Capital owners means those who purely derive their income from the capital and property they own. If someone works for a wage as their primary income, meaning they require it to survive, in 95%+ of cases they are workers.
  - rank0 4y ago
    That’s a bit ridiculous and it’s entirely your own definition. A FAANG engineer who makes 300k in salary and owns millions in securities and real estate is absolutely still a “capital owner” or upper class or whatever you wanna call it. The presence of a salary does not preclude someone from owning capital. The basis for almost everyone’s retirement is US equities and property.
    - feet 4y ago
      >meaning they require it to survive That is the differentiating factor. People can move into being capital owners sure, but it is extremely rare If someone can quit their job and survive off of capital gains while not being homeless, they would be considered a capital owner
      - rank0 4y ago
        Not even trying to be confrontational here, and I appreciate the conversation. My 65 year old father maxed out his 401k for 35 years working his ass off. He's also set to receive a government pension from ~15 years working in the public sector. When he retires in a few years, would you lump him into this elite ruling class of "capital owner"? He will be indeed living off capital gains without a salary. He will certainly not be homeless and even lives in a nice home. I truly cannot understand how someone in that position is supposed to be the enemy of American workers...
        feet 4y ago
        No, he doesn't live off of capital gains purely from his assets. A 401k will be drained through retirement and a pension is not capital gains.