2 ms·
> No matter how you slice it, that would be a redistribution of wealth from the uneducated to the educated. That's simply not true, at least not in any meaning
by danaris 4y ago
> No matter how you slice it, that would be a redistribution of wealth from the uneducated to the educated.
That's simply not true, at least not in any meaningful sense.
It would be perfectly straightforward to fund that entirely by raising income taxes on the highest earners.
I'm sure some of them count as "uneducated", in the technical "did not go to (or dropped out of) college" sense, but once you're selecting specifically for the highest earners, that ceases to actually matter.
- yaks_hairbrush 4y ago> It would be perfectly straightforward to fund that entirely by raising income taxes on the highest earners. Even if you do that, you're still getting inflation. That'll hit everyone -- not just high earners. Loan forgiveness and payment pauses free up a fair bit of middle class budget and therefore increase the velocity of money.
- danaris 4y agoThe idea that reducing inequality by redistributing the massive gains of the very wealthy to those who actually produced them will raise inflation by a degree that makes it hurt people more than it helps is propaganda with no basis in fact. So sure, maybe there will be some inflation. But having a $150,000 debt canceled, while seeing 0.03% additional inflation, still nets out positive.