5 ms·

I don't know how anyone can support student loan forgiveness. it's simply a fact that college graduates and people who even partially completed college make mor

I don't know how anyone can support student loan forgiveness. it's simply a fact that college graduates and people who even partially completed college make more money than those who never attended. there's really no argument that would justify forgiving peoples' loans vs giving the same amount of money to the poorest people in reverse order (poorest getting richer). if for some odd reason the poorest people also happened to be college participants (though to be clear, this is not true) then fine; still no broad student loan forgiveness required. I've asked people who support student loan forgiveness for their response and I get blank stares. and yes, we shouldn't give the rich tax breaks either.

skinnymuch 3y ago
Everyone could get the same tax credit that is also itself taxed. Forgive the loans of people and get poor people crucial money. No one has said that to you?
- endisneigh 3y ago
  no because it is nonsensical. you still could give even more money to poor people if you didn't forgive the loans of college participants. what you are saying isn't really a response, it's an ambiguation of the issue.
  - skinnymuch 3y ago
    What you’re saying doesn’t exclude my policy specifications. The end result is the same. Every person of age gets up to $X in the way of loan debt payoff and/or tax credits. The results will be filed in taxes. A progressive tax rate based on wealth can be up to 100% for this specific money. If this is still an ambiguation of the issue to you, I can clarify further.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      It’s not progressive because you’re unnecessarily giving rich people money. Is it that hard to understand? No rich person will have 100% taxation, thus they have benefited unnecessarily from your scheme. Simply give poor money people exclusively.
      - skinnymuch 3y ago
        This concept is for a wealth tax and/or income tax (one would have to pass below both barriers to get the tax credit and/or loan repayment) that goes up to 100% for this specific money via specific avenues. You can’t hand wave away a policy proposal with “no rich person will have 100% taxation”. Since it’s a tax credit and it’s getting taxed immediately. Rich people won’t be getting the money. > Simply give poor money people exclusively. I guess we just have to disagree. I assume you’re too liberal? I come from a leftist perspective. For me policy, end results, class, and material changes are more important than liberal progressive mentality of a charity/welfare state of affairs. Also you stated no rich person pays 100% taxes yet you’re stating something that never happens too: poor people exclusively getting money.
- D13Fd 3y ago
  Why not just give people money directly? Why should people who chose to take on debt get money when others don't? That is unfair.
  - skinnymuch 3y ago
    Every person of age gets up to $X in the way of loan debt payoff and/or tax credits. The results will be filed in taxes. A progressive tax rate based on wealth can be up to 100% for this specific money. What I am saying satisfies what you’re saying.
rocqua 3y ago
What about interest rate deduction? I have dutch student debt, 44000 originally. But the interest rate is 0% which makes paying back decently doable. Besides that, there are hardship clauses which can yield partial debt forgiveness if my income were to fall. These measures make the debt easily manageable. At 7% interest the debt would suck. The final goal behind this is to get more people into higher education, not incone distribution.
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
That "partially completed college" statistic includes people who received certificates (without graduating with a degree). I believe parents who took out loans for since deceased children should be forgiven. Not for economic reasons, but because every single month they pay the bill they are gut-punched anew. I believe students (and parents of) who became disabled, such that they could not work in the field they went to school for, should have their loans forgiven, as debt has a particular psychological toll on the disabled compared to the abled. When it comes to giving money to poor people circumstances matter. Some of the poorest people will be members of cults that provide for all of their needs, for instance.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  I couldn’t disagree more. First of all college participants get more money, period: https://www.aplu.org/our-work/4-policy-and-advocacy/publicuvalues/employment-earnings/ https://www.aplu.org/our-work/4-policy-and-advocacy/publicuv... Second of all, your emotional plea around students being disabled is salient but irrelevant. If they’re that poor they would get money through a straight “give poor people money scheme.” No matter how you slice it there will be poor people who fit any scenario you can conceive who also did not participant in college. Any sort of prioritizing or preference on college participation is regressive.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    Your link appears to be about bachelor degree recipients. > If they’re that poor they would get money through a straight “give poor people money scheme.” That then goes to paying off their debt. https://www.tateesq.com/learn/can-ssi-be-garnished-for-student-loans https://www.tateesq.com/learn/can-ssi-be-garnished-for-stude... "Student loans can’t stop you from getting Medicare. But defaulting on federal student debt can lead to your Social Security retirement and disability benefits being garnished." > Any sort of prioritizing or preference on college participation is regressive. For students who had federal loans for predatory schools an argument is that the government (through accreditation) was responsible for validating the school prior to giving loans to attend the school. The fact that it fell down on this job, leading to harm for the loan recipients (both money, and time, only one of which can be compensated), justifies eliminating the debt. Otherwise you can make the argument that the money from any compensatory judgement should go to the poorest first, and not the person seeking compensation (which would have a regressive effect of wronged parties not seeking to hold the people committing the wrong accountable - which is some of the force behind holding entities such as predatory schools accountable).

skinnymuch 3y ago

Everyone could get the same tax credit that is also itself taxed. Forgive the loans of people and get poor people crucial money. No one has said that to you?

endisneigh 3y ago
no because it is nonsensical. you still could give even more money to poor people if you didn't forgive the loans of college participants. what you are saying isn't really a response, it's an ambiguation of the issue.
- skinnymuch 3y ago
  What you’re saying doesn’t exclude my policy specifications. The end result is the same. Every person of age gets up to $X in the way of loan debt payoff and/or tax credits. The results will be filed in taxes. A progressive tax rate based on wealth can be up to 100% for this specific money. If this is still an ambiguation of the issue to you, I can clarify further.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    It’s not progressive because you’re unnecessarily giving rich people money. Is it that hard to understand? No rich person will have 100% taxation, thus they have benefited unnecessarily from your scheme. Simply give poor money people exclusively.
    - skinnymuch 3y ago
      This concept is for a wealth tax and/or income tax (one would have to pass below both barriers to get the tax credit and/or loan repayment) that goes up to 100% for this specific money via specific avenues. You can’t hand wave away a policy proposal with “no rich person will have 100% taxation”. Since it’s a tax credit and it’s getting taxed immediately. Rich people won’t be getting the money. > Simply give poor money people exclusively. I guess we just have to disagree. I assume you’re too liberal? I come from a leftist perspective. For me policy, end results, class, and material changes are more important than liberal progressive mentality of a charity/welfare state of affairs. Also you stated no rich person pays 100% taxes yet you’re stating something that never happens too: poor people exclusively getting money.
D13Fd 3y ago
Why not just give people money directly? Why should people who chose to take on debt get money when others don't? That is unfair.
- skinnymuch 3y ago
  Every person of age gets up to $X in the way of loan debt payoff and/or tax credits. The results will be filed in taxes. A progressive tax rate based on wealth can be up to 100% for this specific money. What I am saying satisfies what you’re saying.

rocqua 3y ago

What about interest rate deduction? I have dutch student debt, 44000 originally. But the interest rate is 0% which makes paying back decently doable. Besides that, there are hardship clauses which can yield partial debt forgiveness if my income were to fall. These measures make the debt easily manageable. At 7% interest the debt would suck. The final goal behind this is to get more people into higher education, not incone distribution.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

That "partially completed college" statistic includes people who received certificates (without graduating with a degree). I believe parents who took out loans for since deceased children should be forgiven. Not for economic reasons, but because every single month they pay the bill they are gut-punched anew. I believe students (and parents of) who became disabled, such that they could not work in the field they went to school for, should have their loans forgiven, as debt has a particular psychological toll on the disabled compared to the abled. When it comes to giving money to poor people circumstances matter. Some of the poorest people will be members of cults that provide for all of their needs, for instance.

endisneigh 3y ago
I couldn’t disagree more. First of all college participants get more money, period: https://www.aplu.org/our-work/4-policy-and-advocacy/publicuvalues/employment-earnings/ https://www.aplu.org/our-work/4-policy-and-advocacy/publicuv... Second of all, your emotional plea around students being disabled is salient but irrelevant. If they’re that poor they would get money through a straight “give poor people money scheme.” No matter how you slice it there will be poor people who fit any scenario you can conceive who also did not participant in college. Any sort of prioritizing or preference on college participation is regressive.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Your link appears to be about bachelor degree recipients. > If they’re that poor they would get money through a straight “give poor people money scheme.” That then goes to paying off their debt. https://www.tateesq.com/learn/can-ssi-be-garnished-for-student-loans https://www.tateesq.com/learn/can-ssi-be-garnished-for-stude... "Student loans can’t stop you from getting Medicare. But defaulting on federal student debt can lead to your Social Security retirement and disability benefits being garnished." > Any sort of prioritizing or preference on college participation is regressive. For students who had federal loans for predatory schools an argument is that the government (through accreditation) was responsible for validating the school prior to giving loans to attend the school. The fact that it fell down on this job, leading to harm for the loan recipients (both money, and time, only one of which can be compensated), justifies eliminating the debt. Otherwise you can make the argument that the money from any compensatory judgement should go to the poorest first, and not the person seeking compensation (which would have a regressive effect of wronged parties not seeking to hold the people committing the wrong accountable - which is some of the force behind holding entities such as predatory schools accountable).