4 ms·
The courses were taken, the education was received. This would just transfer the cost of already provided services to the general taxpayer. It would make nobody
by glimshe 3y ago
The courses were taken, the education was received. This would just transfer the cost of already provided services to the general taxpayer. It would make nobody more educated as a result.
- oddtuple 3y agoHow would it cost the taxpayer more? Can you explain? The money has already been spent, and it’s already being collected in the form of taxes on those individuals whom are now earning more thanks to education. Why would we need more taxes?
- glimshe 3y agoThat's why I said "general taxpayer". It would be paid by people other than the ones receiving the education. You might argue this is how things should be, but it's still not an "investment in education". If you are trying to argue that the increased tax levied on the particular indebted people with a better education adds up to the exact amount they owed, someone would have to prove that. Additionally, this additional tax from better education was never intended by Congress, when the tax rate was calculated, to go to paying anyone's previous education debt. So other services (arguably benefitting the entire population) would have to be preempted to pay for it. Either way, you'd have someone else paying for the debt.
- oddtuple 3y agoReposting so others don’t feed into this propaganda. The talking point that loan forgiveness would “raise taxes” is at best dubious. Here is one, of many studies that dispute it https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/rpr_2_6.pdf https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/rpr_2_6.pdf
- oddtuple 3y agoThis is a common attitude, and an understandable one, but it’s very much at odds with the research. There are more studies and discussions, but this is one of them highlighting how this is a nothing burger https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/rpr_2_6.pdf https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/rpr_2_6.pdf