• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

Canard DuJour

Veteran Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
1,181
Location
UK
Basic Beliefs
dunno
The Meme that Refuses to Die: Government Debt Must Be Paid Back

No it doesn't. It almost never is. To pay back government debt, you have to run a budget surplus, and while there may be modest surpluses from time to time, they don't add up to more than a minuscule fraction of all the accumulated debt. But don't take it from me, look at the record :

(...)

Governments that issue their own money don’t have to pay off their debts. They actually can’t. In fact, they issue money — the money that’s necessary for a growing economy to operate — by deficit spending.

That leaves the idea that future net ("deficit") govt spending is constrained by previous net govt spending - the idea that "future tax payers will get less".

The evidence is very much to the contrary. Govts, if anything, constrain current spending by debt to GDP ratios (a bit like why you spend more than when you were a teenager). The GDP component of that ratio mainly increases with human skills and education. Apart from natural resources, there isn't really any other significant source of economic growth.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,935
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The Meme that Refuses to Die: Government Debt Must Be Paid Back

No it doesn't. It almost never is. To pay back government debt, you have to run a budget surplus, and while there may be modest surpluses from time to time, they don't add up to more than a minuscule fraction of all the accumulated debt. But don't take it from me, look at the record :

(...)

Governments that issue their own money don’t have to pay off their debts. They actually can’t. In fact, they issue money — the money that’s necessary for a growing economy to operate — by deficit spending.

That leaves the idea that future net ("deficit") govt spending is constrained by previous net govt spending - the idea that "future tax payers will get less".

The evidence is very much to the contrary. Govts, if anything, constrain current spending by debt to GDP ratios (a bit like why you spend more than when you were a teenager). The GDP component of that ratio mainly increases with human skills and education. Apart from natural resources, there isn't really any other significant source of economic growth.
I think we have had this discussion before ya?

We took our fiat money out of the void, we have no need to pay it back as such.

As long as the money we have taken out of the void represents a fair bit of work collective contribution per dollar, the economy can be said to be rather healthy...

Assuming all that action is not tied up in one or two small tumorous overgrowths of power.
 

Canard DuJour

Veteran Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
1,181
Location
UK
Basic Beliefs
dunno
The Meme that Refuses to Die: Government Debt Must Be Paid Back

No it doesn't. It almost never is. To pay back government debt, you have to run a budget surplus, and while there may be modest surpluses from time to time, they don't add up to more than a minuscule fraction of all the accumulated debt. But don't take it from me, look at the record :

(...)

Governments that issue their own money don’t have to pay off their debts. They actually can’t. In fact, they issue money — the money that’s necessary for a growing economy to operate — by deficit spending.

That leaves the idea that future net ("deficit") govt spending is constrained by previous net govt spending - the idea that "future tax payers will get less".

The evidence is very much to the contrary. Govts, if anything, constrain current spending by debt to GDP ratios (a bit like why you spend more than when you were a teenager). The GDP component of that ratio mainly increases with human skills and education. Apart from natural resources, there isn't really any other significant source of economic growth.
I think we have had this discussion before ya?

We took our fiat money out of the void, we have no need to pay it back as such.

As long as the money we have taken out of the void represents a fair bit of work collective contribution per dollar, the economy can be said to be rather healthy...

Assuming all that action is not tied up in one or two small tumorous overgrowths of power.

Yah. People have been having this discussion since ..money.. at least since Aristotle. What is money and where does it come from? Like time and space, you think you know until you think about it. It has become more obscured than ever since about 1980, and not by accident.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,935
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
As long as the money we have taken out of the void represents a fair bit of work collective contribution per dollar, the economy can be said to be rather healthy...
Looks like someone dropped this...

Though to be fair "work" is superfluous in the statement.
 

Canard DuJour

Veteran Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
1,181
Location
UK
Basic Beliefs
dunno
We took our fiat money out of the void, we have no need to pay it back as such.
It's like when Nero debased the Denarius. It increased the money supply so no problem.

If Nero thought that by debasing the currency he was increasing real wealth, then he was making the same mistake as today's "fiscal conservative" who thinks an artificial scarcity of money will increase its value and, thus, real wealth.

Same cognitive error with the signs reversed.
 

Playball40

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
1,972
Location
Gallifrey
Basic Beliefs
Non-religious
The comment section is full of a lot of angry people who don't want anyone to have loan forgiveness. I find that surprising since most surveys claims there is over 50% support for student loan forgiveness. The article should be available for anyone to read for at least two weeks, according to WaPo's gifting rules.
Includes a bit of resentment from people who endured crippling student debt and don't like the thought of other people getting out easy.
The problem is people who suffered being responsible dislike seeing others get rewarded for irresponsibility.
So people paying student loans today are "irresponsible" but when you did it, it was a good investment? What a crock.
Wut? Isn’t it about folks who were responsible and paid back their loans resenting that their taxes will be used to write off the loans of others? Is the government going to refund our payments with interest? Or are we just suckers for being responsible?
It’s like people who were children before there were vaccinations available to prevent measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, polio and more resenting kids today who can be vaccinated against these diseases.
That analogy doesn’t work at all.
How so?
People took out loans. Some paid them back, as agreed. Others did not. So those who breached the agreement would be rewarded while those who were responsible are out the money they repaid. What suckers.
Having your loan forgiven is not breaching any agreement. The lender forgives the loan. This is not the same thing as the borrower skipping out on the loan.

Kids are born. Some are born when there were no vaccinations against measles, mumps, rubella, polio, chickenpox, etc. They got those diseases and some died or were permanently disabled because of them. Then there were vaccinations and those children whose parents were smart and able to get them vaccinated did not become ill from those preventable diseases. Some kids have stupid parents and unfortunately, they tend to get sick. Even more unfortunately, some kids cannot be vaccinated because they are undergoing treatment for childhood cancers or are otherwise immune suppressed and they get sick and die from things like chickenpox or measles instead of cancer which was in remission.

I grew up (mostly) with indoor plumbing, something my parents did not have as children. That is in no way unfair to them because they suffered from not having indoor plumbing.

My kids grew up with cable tv and cell phones and computers. That is in no way unfair to me because I did not have those things.

Keep in mind that most of those loans were taken out by kids who are too young to legally consume alcoholic beverages or to sign other kinds of contracts. Also, those loans cannot be discharged under most circumstances due to serious misfortune. Some are able to get their loans discharged if they can document permanent disability AND if they remain below the poverty line for a certain number of years.
Let's not forget that WE had the benefit of going to college when it WAS affordable. We were able to work part time and pay for school. That simply does not exist anymore.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,284
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Compare the number of positions asking for a certain degree with the number of people who want that degree. The state should provide more funding for degrees where the ratio of ask to want is higher.

The government is definitely not smart enough to know what courses are valuable it will be valuable in the future.
Note that I'm talking degrees, not specific classes.
The government is t really a good predictor of where the economy will be in 4 or 10 years. Think of all the kinds of jobs there are now that didn’t exist 15 years ago.

Unless you are going into a very specific field, your major doesn’t matter much. Sure, it does if you want to be an accountant or a nurse or a teacher. Beyond that? Not so much.
Really, now? You don't realize there are degrees with very poor job prospects because there's so little demand for the skill? Such basically worthless degrees are a fair chunk of the student loan problem.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
Let's not forget that WE had the benefit of going to college when it WAS affordable. We were able to work part time and pay for school. That simply does not exist anymore.
This is true. The older generation has screwed the younger generation; lived high on the hog and sent the bill to their children and those yet to be born. But this is no excuse to screw over those who responsibly paid their debts or make others pay the debts of the irresponsible.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,284
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The Meme that Refuses to Die: Government Debt Must Be Paid Back

No it doesn't. It almost never is. To pay back government debt, you have to run a budget surplus, and while there may be modest surpluses from time to time, they don't add up to more than a minuscule fraction of all the accumulated debt. But don't take it from me, look at the record :

(...)

Governments that issue their own money don’t have to pay off their debts. They actually can’t. In fact, they issue money — the money that’s necessary for a growing economy to operate — by deficit spending.

That leaves the idea that future net ("deficit") govt spending is constrained by previous net govt spending - the idea that "future tax payers will get less".

The evidence is very much to the contrary. Govts, if anything, constrain current spending by debt to GDP ratios (a bit like why you spend more than when you were a teenager). The GDP component of that ratio mainly increases with human skills and education. Apart from natural resources, there isn't really any other significant source of economic growth.
This is the leftist equivalent of tax cuts pay for themselves. It's no more correct.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,935
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Compare the number of positions asking for a certain degree with the number of people who want that degree. The state should provide more funding for degrees where the ratio of ask to want is higher.

The government is definitely not smart enough to know what courses are valuable it will be valuable in the future.
Note that I'm talking degrees, not specific classes.
The government is t really a good predictor of where the economy will be in 4 or 10 years. Think of all the kinds of jobs there are now that didn’t exist 15 years ago.

Unless you are going into a very specific field, your major doesn’t matter much. Sure, it does if you want to be an accountant or a nurse or a teacher. Beyond that? Not so much.
Really, now? You don't realize there are degrees with very poor job prospects because there's so little demand for the skill? Such basically worthless degrees are a fair chunk of the student loan problem.
They are not worthless and the point is not demand. The point is self actualization through education.

If that self actualization is into a bachelor's in ethnic studies who works the fry machine at McDonald's, I'm cool with my taxes going towards that, because there are a lot of core requirements in addition to the specific degree content because when I'm buying weed from that BA of ethnic studies in the parking lot later, I don't have to explain to them how chemtrails aren't a thing and that "the Jews" didn't "do 9-11" or whatever and need to find a new pot dealer.

Maybe some smart rubs off on them, you know?

Or maybe they self actualize as an accountant who does a good job and gets paid mad paper counting other people's paper.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
They are not worthless and the point is not demand. The point is self actualization through education.
Fine. But there is no good reason for the universities to charge what they do for that. Federal student loans are exploited by the universities. The universities are the problem.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,935
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
No, the problem is that there needs to be a single payer source of funding that whips it all into shape.

The problem is capitalistic approaches to public infrastructure.

Education should be publicly funded, for everyone, to the extent that the student seeks education.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
No, the problem is that there needs to be a single payer source of funding that whips it all into shape.

The problem is capitalistic approaches to public infrastructure.

Education should be publicly funded, for everyone, to the extent that the student seeks education.
If the universities have enough money for their armies of diversicrats and multiple layers of administration, they have enough money to lower tuition. But, priorities, right?
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,077
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
No, the problem is that there needs to be a single payer source of funding that whips it all into shape.

The problem is capitalistic approaches to public infrastructure.

Education should be publicly funded, for everyone, to the extent that the student seeks education.
If the universities have enough money for their armies of diversicrats and multiple layers of administration, they have enough money to lower tuition. But, priorities, right?

The schools can do with their money as they so please. ~Truly yours Capitolism~

In my opinion, things like health, safety & education shouldn't be locked behind a paywall. The free market has plenty of other shit to peddle.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,159
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Compare the number of positions asking for a certain degree with the number of people who want that degree. The state should provide more funding for degrees where the ratio of ask to want is higher.

The government is definitely not smart enough to know what courses are valuable it will be valuable in the future.
Note that I'm talking degrees, not specific classes.
The government is t really a good predictor of where the economy will be in 4 or 10 years. Think of all the kinds of jobs there are now that didn’t exist 15 years ago.

Unless you are going into a very specific field, your major doesn’t matter much. Sure, it does if you want to be an accountant or a nurse or a teacher. Beyond that? Not so much.
Really, now? You don't realize there are degrees with very poor job prospects because there's so little demand for the skill? Such basically worthless degrees are a fair chunk of the student loan problem.
And yet, coursework in two of those fields landed me jobs that I really really really needed at the time.

Trust me, I was absolutely shocked that I ever earned a dime from French classes and Shakespeare/Greek drama.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
No, the problem is that there needs to be a single payer source of funding that whips it all into shape.

The problem is capitalistic approaches to public infrastructure.

Education should be publicly funded, for everyone, to the extent that the student seeks education.
If the universities have enough money for their armies of diversicrats and multiple layers of administration, they have enough money to lower tuition. But, priorities, right?

The schools can do with their money as they so please. ~Truly yours Capitolism~

In my opinion, things like health, safety & education shouldn't be locked behind a paywall. The free market has plenty of other shit to peddle.
Or just be efficient. In-state tuition for Florida public universities - like UF - is a bargain by comparison to elsewhere. How is UF, a “public ivy,” able to do that? Where there’s no state income tax?
 

Canard DuJour

Veteran Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
1,181
Location
UK
Basic Beliefs
dunno
The Meme that Refuses to Die: Government Debt Must Be Paid Back

No it doesn't. It almost never is. To pay back government debt, you have to run a budget surplus, and while there may be modest surpluses from time to time, they don't add up to more than a minuscule fraction of all the accumulated debt. But don't take it from me, look at the record :

(...)

Governments that issue their own money don’t have to pay off their debts. They actually can’t. In fact, they issue money — the money that’s necessary for a growing economy to operate — by deficit spending.

That leaves the idea that future net ("deficit") govt spending is constrained by previous net govt spending - the idea that "future tax payers will get less".

The evidence is very much to the contrary. Govts, if anything, constrain current spending by debt to GDP ratios (a bit like why you spend more than when you were a teenager). The GDP component of that ratio mainly increases with human skills and education. Apart from natural resources, there isn't really any other significant source of economic growth.
This is the leftist equivalent of tax cuts pay for themselves. It's no more correct.

The difference is evidence. There's plenty evidence of positive multiplier effects from net govt spending - esp education, infrastructure, healthcare - but little to none that tax cuts for the rich have any such effect.

And anyone can verify that the occasional budget surpluses don't add up to more than a minuscule fraction of all the accumulated "debt".
 
Last edited:

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,153
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
No, the problem is that there needs to be a single payer source of funding that whips it all into shape.

The problem is capitalistic approaches to public infrastructure.

Education should be publicly funded, for everyone, to the extent that the student seeks education.
If the universities have enough money for their armies of diversicrats and multiple layers of administration, they have enough money to lower tuition. But, priorities, right?

The schools can do with their money as they so please. ~Truly yours Capitolism~

In my opinion, things like health, safety & education shouldn't be locked behind a paywall. The free market has plenty of other shit to peddle.
Or just be efficient. In-state tuition for Florida public universities - like UF - is a bargain by comparison to elsewhere. How is UF, a “public ivy,” able to do that? Where there’s no state income tax?
UF is not really a public ivy. I realize that this concept is difficult to grasp, but education is much like anything else one can buy - you tend to get what you pay for.

Moreover, your grasp on university expenses and arithmetic is tenuous. Even granting your debatable assumption about what constitutes "wasteful" expenditures as valid, when they are divided by the number of affected students, the effect on tuition is usually pretty small.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,153
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Making a loan is a sunk cost.
Forgiving the loan means you will not get income from that cost.

But that means you don't have the income you expected. You can't spend as much on other things as you intended. You're pulling the standard leftist handwave of pretending something sufficiently dispersed ceases to exist.
All lenders always risk that they will not be paid back. The risk is reflected in the interest charged. In my example, I was charging 5% interest which is higher than today’s mortgage rates or car loans.

Failure to repay a loan generally is reflected in a credit score.

You’re looking at education as a private good rather than a public good. And as job training rather than education. Society benefits from a well educated populace. Better educated people are better able to be informed on issues of the day. They tend to be happier and healthier people and, regardless of whether or not they work in the field in which they earned their degree, they tend to earn more money. They tend to make better choices in life. All of these things lead to a more stable, more productive society.

I see this as a good thing.
You didn't address Loren's question at all.

You failing to get paid back means you don't have the money you would have had. Your assertion that government forgiving debt harms nobody is wrong.
It is wrong only under certain assumptions. You and LP are only looking at part of the picture. You ignore the additional tax revenue generated from the additional earnings that education facilitated for the person. You ignore the additional tax revenue from the additional spending that the education caused. And, more importantly, it ignores
1) the additional benefit to society of having more educated people, and
2) the additional benefit of having better people (which is the ultimate goal of all education - the betterment of the individual).

Now, once all of that is considered, it may very well be the case that no one is harmed by forgiving the debt if the additional benefits accruing from the use of that debt outweigh the costs of issuing that debt (which include any forbearance of repayment).

All in all, your analysis, is economically naive.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
No, the problem is that there needs to be a single payer source of funding that whips it all into shape.

The problem is capitalistic approaches to public infrastructure.

Education should be publicly funded, for everyone, to the extent that the student seeks education.
If the universities have enough money for their armies of diversicrats and multiple layers of administration, they have enough money to lower tuition. But, priorities, right?

The schools can do with their money as they so please. ~Truly yours Capitolism~

In my opinion, things like health, safety & education shouldn't be locked behind a paywall. The free market has plenty of other shit to peddle.
Or just be efficient. In-state tuition for Florida public universities - like UF - is a bargain by comparison to elsewhere. How is UF, a “public ivy,” able to do that? Where there’s no state income tax?
UF is not really a public ivy. I realize that this concept is difficult to grasp, but education is much like anything else one can buy - you tend to get what you pay for.

Moreover, your grasp on university expenses and arithmetic is tenuous. Even granting your debatable assumption about what constitutes "wasteful" expenditures as valid, when they are divided by the number of affected students, the effect on tuition is usually pretty small.
I didn't make it up, dude.  Public_Ivy Sheesh. And I did undergrad at UF years ago. Did not realize the bargain until I left the state and spoke to other folks about what they paid. Kinda shocked.
 
Last edited:

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,153
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Or just be efficient. In-state tuition for Florida public universities - like UF - is a bargain by comparison to elsewhere. How is UF, a “public ivy,” able to do that? Where there’s no state income tax?
UF is not really a public ivy. I realize that this concept is difficult to grasp, but education is much like anything else one can buy - you tend to get what you pay for.

Moreover, your grasp on university expenses and arithmetic is tenuous. Even granting your debatable assumption about what constitutes "wasteful" expenditures as valid, when they are divided by the number of affected students, the effect on tuition is usually pretty small.
I didn't make it up, dude.  Public_Ivy Sheesh.
FFS, no one said you made it up. The list of "public ivies' continues to expand which strongly suggests the standards for inclusion are falling.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
Making a loan is a sunk cost.
Forgiving the loan means you will not get income from that cost.

But that means you don't have the income you expected. You can't spend as much on other things as you intended. You're pulling the standard leftist handwave of pretending something sufficiently dispersed ceases to exist.
All lenders always risk that they will not be paid back. The risk is reflected in the interest charged. In my example, I was charging 5% interest which is higher than today’s mortgage rates or car loans.

Failure to repay a loan generally is reflected in a credit score.

You’re looking at education as a private good rather than a public good. And as job training rather than education. Society benefits from a well educated populace. Better educated people are better able to be informed on issues of the day. They tend to be happier and healthier people and, regardless of whether or not they work in the field in which they earned their degree, they tend to earn more money. They tend to make better choices in life. All of these things lead to a more stable, more productive society.

I see this as a good thing.
You didn't address Loren's question at all.

You failing to get paid back means you don't have the money you would have had. Your assertion that government forgiving debt harms nobody is wrong.
It is wrong only under certain assumptions. You and LP are only looking at part of the picture. You ignore the additional tax revenue generated from the additional earnings that education facilitated for the person. You ignore the additional tax revenue from the additional spending that the education caused. And, more importantly, it ignores
1) the additional benefit to society of having more educated people, and
2) the additional benefit of having better people (which is the ultimate goal of all education - the betterment of the individual).

Now, once all of that is considered, it may very well be the case that no one is harmed by forgiving the debt if the additional benefits accruing from the use of that debt outweigh the costs of issuing that debt (which include any forbearance of repayment).

All in all, your analysis, is economically naive.
Yeah! We get to bail out the banks again!
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,284
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The Meme that Refuses to Die: Government Debt Must Be Paid Back

No it doesn't. It almost never is. To pay back government debt, you have to run a budget surplus, and while there may be modest surpluses from time to time, they don't add up to more than a minuscule fraction of all the accumulated debt. But don't take it from me, look at the record :

(...)

Governments that issue their own money don’t have to pay off their debts. They actually can’t. In fact, they issue money — the money that’s necessary for a growing economy to operate — by deficit spending.

That leaves the idea that future net ("deficit") govt spending is constrained by previous net govt spending - the idea that "future tax payers will get less".

The evidence is very much to the contrary. Govts, if anything, constrain current spending by debt to GDP ratios (a bit like why you spend more than when you were a teenager). The GDP component of that ratio mainly increases with human skills and education. Apart from natural resources, there isn't really any other significant source of economic growth.
This is the leftist equivalent of tax cuts pay for themselves. It's no more correct.

The difference is evidence. There's plenty evidence of positive multiplier effects from net govt spending - esp education, infrastructure, healthcare - but little to none that tax cuts for the rich have any such effect.

And anyone can verify that the occasional budget surpluses don't add up to more than a minuscule fraction of all the accumulated "debt".
Exactly the same crap as the right is peddling.

Of course there's a multiplier. Government spending has a multiplier, tax cuts have a multiplier. The question is whether the multiplier is large enough to be a net positive.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,932
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.
No, nothing is going to come out of the taxpayers' pockets.

The money was spent, in the past. It came out of the taxpayers' pockets then. It's a sunk cost.

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.
It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.
No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

Forgiveness of the repayments is just a tax cut, targeted at former students whose career earnings haven't been as high as was originally anticipated. And it cuts their currently elevated tax rate back to the same rate that others with the same income currently pay.

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.
And when the taxpayer paid the cost for the student, it was with the student's promise to pay the amount back.

The whole point of income taxation is that everyone with the same income pays the same tax, regardless of what government services they might have accessed in the past. We don't charge people additional income tax because they commute more than average on interstate highways, or because they claimed SNAP benefits at some time in the past, or because they live in a place that was struck by a natural disaster and received federal assistance. We just look at income, and tax a percentage of that.

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.
"Nuts" is characterising loan repayments as a tax. It is not one.
Not to anyone who is even remotely economically literate. bilby is correct in that when the gov't forgives a loan repayment has the same economic impact on the borrower as a tax cut. The loan payment has the same immediate economic impact on the borrower as a tax payment.

In essence, bilby's argument rests on the implicit premise that any fees government-funded education should be income-based not service expense based.

bilby said:
Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That characterisation is false and nuts. It ignores everything about how student debts are incurred.
I bold-faced and italicized the part of my response you clearly did not understand. If you did, you'd know your response is nuts.
No, your bolded and italicised part is irrelevant.
This is an indication you still have not read my response with a modicum of understanding. Because if you had, you'd understand that the phrase "argument rests on the implicit premise that " means your response is completely irrelevant.

Furthermore, bilby's argument is that debt-forgiveness has the same effects as a tax cut (not that it is identical to a tax cut) for the borrowers. He is correct on that point.

Whether it has the 'same effect' is irrelevant. bibly said:

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.

That statement is false and nuts.
The discussion is about the policy in the USA about debts in the USA. Hence your comments about Australia is truly pointless.
No, it was not pointless. The point was that repaying a debt is not "paying taxes."

 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,153
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.
No, nothing is going to come out of the taxpayers' pockets.

The money was spent, in the past. It came out of the taxpayers' pockets then. It's a sunk cost.

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.
It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.
No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

Forgiveness of the repayments is just a tax cut, targeted at former students whose career earnings haven't been as high as was originally anticipated. And it cuts their currently elevated tax rate back to the same rate that others with the same income currently pay.

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.
And when the taxpayer paid the cost for the student, it was with the student's promise to pay the amount back.

The whole point of income taxation is that everyone with the same income pays the same tax, regardless of what government services they might have accessed in the past. We don't charge people additional income tax because they commute more than average on interstate highways, or because they claimed SNAP benefits at some time in the past, or because they live in a place that was struck by a natural disaster and received federal assistance. We just look at income, and tax a percentage of that.

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.
"Nuts" is characterising loan repayments as a tax. It is not one.
Not to anyone who is even remotely economically literate. bilby is correct in that when the gov't forgives a loan repayment has the same economic impact on the borrower as a tax cut. The loan payment has the same immediate economic impact on the borrower as a tax payment.

In essence, bilby's argument rests on the implicit premise that any fees government-funded education should be income-based not service expense based.

bilby said:
Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That characterisation is false and nuts. It ignores everything about how student debts are incurred.
I bold-faced and italicized the part of my response you clearly did not understand. If you did, you'd know your response is nuts.
No, your bolded and italicised part is irrelevant.
This is an indication you still have not read my response with a modicum of understanding. Because if you had, you'd understand that the phrase "argument rests on the implicit premise that " means your response is completely irrelevant.

Furthermore, bilby's argument is that debt-forgiveness has the same effects as a tax cut (not that it is identical to a tax cut) for the borrowers. He is correct on that point.

Whether it has the 'same effect' is irrelevant. bibly said:

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.

That statement is false and nuts.
The discussion is about the policy in the USA about debts in the USA. Hence your comments about Australia is truly pointless.
No, it was not pointless. The point was that repaying a debt is not "paying taxes."
You are simply mistaken. Not that it will stop your repetition of taking quotes of the context of the discusion, and economic illiteracy.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,932
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.
No, nothing is going to come out of the taxpayers' pockets.

The money was spent, in the past. It came out of the taxpayers' pockets then. It's a sunk cost.

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.
It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.
No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

Forgiveness of the repayments is just a tax cut, targeted at former students whose career earnings haven't been as high as was originally anticipated. And it cuts their currently elevated tax rate back to the same rate that others with the same income currently pay.

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.
And when the taxpayer paid the cost for the student, it was with the student's promise to pay the amount back.

The whole point of income taxation is that everyone with the same income pays the same tax, regardless of what government services they might have accessed in the past. We don't charge people additional income tax because they commute more than average on interstate highways, or because they claimed SNAP benefits at some time in the past, or because they live in a place that was struck by a natural disaster and received federal assistance. We just look at income, and tax a percentage of that.

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.
"Nuts" is characterising loan repayments as a tax. It is not one.
Not to anyone who is even remotely economically literate. bilby is correct in that when the gov't forgives a loan repayment has the same economic impact on the borrower as a tax cut. The loan payment has the same immediate economic impact on the borrower as a tax payment.

In essence, bilby's argument rests on the implicit premise that any fees government-funded education should be income-based not service expense based.

bilby said:
Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That characterisation is false and nuts. It ignores everything about how student debts are incurred.
I bold-faced and italicized the part of my response you clearly did not understand. If you did, you'd know your response is nuts.
No, your bolded and italicised part is irrelevant.
This is an indication you still have not read my response with a modicum of understanding. Because if you had, you'd understand that the phrase "argument rests on the implicit premise that " means your response is completely irrelevant.

Furthermore, bilby's argument is that debt-forgiveness has the same effects as a tax cut (not that it is identical to a tax cut) for the borrowers. He is correct on that point.

Whether it has the 'same effect' is irrelevant. bibly said:

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.

That statement is false and nuts.
The discussion is about the policy in the USA about debts in the USA. Hence your comments about Australia is truly pointless.
No, it was not pointless. The point was that repaying a debt is not "paying taxes."
You are simply mistaken. Not that it will stop your repetition of taking quotes of the context of the discusion, and economic illiteracy.
Paying back debts to the government is not "extra taxes."

Bilby, and you as his enabler, wants to falsely equate paying back debts to the government with 'extra taxes', because there is a moral difference between paying back debts you incurred (fair) and being charged a higher rate of taxes for having used a government service (unfair).

Paying back debts you owe to the government is not extra taxes.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,159
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.
No, nothing is going to come out of the taxpayers' pockets.

The money was spent, in the past. It came out of the taxpayers' pockets then. It's a sunk cost.

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.
It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.
No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

Forgiveness of the repayments is just a tax cut, targeted at former students whose career earnings haven't been as high as was originally anticipated. And it cuts their currently elevated tax rate back to the same rate that others with the same income currently pay.

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.
And when the taxpayer paid the cost for the student, it was with the student's promise to pay the amount back.

The whole point of income taxation is that everyone with the same income pays the same tax, regardless of what government services they might have accessed in the past. We don't charge people additional income tax because they commute more than average on interstate highways, or because they claimed SNAP benefits at some time in the past, or because they live in a place that was struck by a natural disaster and received federal assistance. We just look at income, and tax a percentage of that.

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.
"Nuts" is characterising loan repayments as a tax. It is not one.
Not to anyone who is even remotely economically literate. bilby is correct in that when the gov't forgives a loan repayment has the same economic impact on the borrower as a tax cut. The loan payment has the same immediate economic impact on the borrower as a tax payment.

In essence, bilby's argument rests on the implicit premise that any fees government-funded education should be income-based not service expense based.

bilby said:
Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That characterisation is false and nuts. It ignores everything about how student debts are incurred.
I bold-faced and italicized the part of my response you clearly did not understand. If you did, you'd know your response is nuts.
No, your bolded and italicised part is irrelevant.
This is an indication you still have not read my response with a modicum of understanding. Because if you had, you'd understand that the phrase "argument rests on the implicit premise that " means your response is completely irrelevant.

Furthermore, bilby's argument is that debt-forgiveness has the same effects as a tax cut (not that it is identical to a tax cut) for the borrowers. He is correct on that point.

Whether it has the 'same effect' is irrelevant. bibly said:

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.

That statement is false and nuts.
The discussion is about the policy in the USA about debts in the USA. Hence your comments about Australia is truly pointless.
No, it was not pointless. The point was that repaying a debt is not "paying taxes."
You are simply mistaken. Not that it will stop your repetition of taking quotes of the context of the discusion, and economic illiteracy.
Paying back debts to the government is not "extra taxes."

Bilby, and you as his enabler, wants to falsely equate paying back debts to the government with 'extra taxes', because there is a moral difference between paying back debts you incurred (fair) and being charged a higher rate of taxes for having used a government service (unfair).

Paying back debts you owe to the government is not extra taxes.
"Paying back debts you owe the government' IS extra taxes if you should not have had to incur the debts in the first place.

I don't know how education funding is handled in Australia but in the US, many student loans have unconscionably high rates of interest, and are given to 18 year olds who lack the experience, understanding or finances to understand the financial commitment and its implications for potentially several decades of their lives. Unfortunately, parents are far too often equally ignorant and cannot or do not provide the needed counseling. This is simply fact in the US. To continually insist that students knowingly took out the loans is not correct as their 'knowledge' was not based on actual fact based information or the understanding of what the implications of such loans, which easily exceed 100K in many cases will do to their future financial security.

Despite the fact the US enacted laws that gave 18 year olds the vote in all state, local and federal elections in 1970 in order to somehow justify drafting 18 year olds to send them to Viet Nam, 18 year olds did not magically become competent adults on their 18th birthdays. Brain science quite explicitly demonstrates that 18 year old brains have not yet matured and are not capable of understanding long term implications of their actions.

I genuinely cannot understand why you take such an interest in whether or not student loans in the US might be forgiven to some extent. It seems absolutely inexplicable. Also, you don't really have that firm a grasp on the implication of taxes, fees, government spending, the multiplier effect, or other basic economic principles.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,932
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.
No, nothing is going to come out of the taxpayers' pockets.

The money was spent, in the past. It came out of the taxpayers' pockets then. It's a sunk cost.

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.
It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.
No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

Forgiveness of the repayments is just a tax cut, targeted at former students whose career earnings haven't been as high as was originally anticipated. And it cuts their currently elevated tax rate back to the same rate that others with the same income currently pay.

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.
And when the taxpayer paid the cost for the student, it was with the student's promise to pay the amount back.

The whole point of income taxation is that everyone with the same income pays the same tax, regardless of what government services they might have accessed in the past. We don't charge people additional income tax because they commute more than average on interstate highways, or because they claimed SNAP benefits at some time in the past, or because they live in a place that was struck by a natural disaster and received federal assistance. We just look at income, and tax a percentage of that.

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.
"Nuts" is characterising loan repayments as a tax. It is not one.
Not to anyone who is even remotely economically literate. bilby is correct in that when the gov't forgives a loan repayment has the same economic impact on the borrower as a tax cut. The loan payment has the same immediate economic impact on the borrower as a tax payment.

In essence, bilby's argument rests on the implicit premise that any fees government-funded education should be income-based not service expense based.

bilby said:
Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That characterisation is false and nuts. It ignores everything about how student debts are incurred.
I bold-faced and italicized the part of my response you clearly did not understand. If you did, you'd know your response is nuts.
No, your bolded and italicised part is irrelevant.
This is an indication you still have not read my response with a modicum of understanding. Because if you had, you'd understand that the phrase "argument rests on the implicit premise that " means your response is completely irrelevant.

Furthermore, bilby's argument is that debt-forgiveness has the same effects as a tax cut (not that it is identical to a tax cut) for the borrowers. He is correct on that point.

Whether it has the 'same effect' is irrelevant. bibly said:

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.

That statement is false and nuts.
The discussion is about the policy in the USA about debts in the USA. Hence your comments about Australia is truly pointless.
No, it was not pointless. The point was that repaying a debt is not "paying taxes."
You are simply mistaken. Not that it will stop your repetition of taking quotes of the context of the discusion, and economic illiteracy.
Paying back debts to the government is not "extra taxes."

Bilby, and you as his enabler, wants to falsely equate paying back debts to the government with 'extra taxes', because there is a moral difference between paying back debts you incurred (fair) and being charged a higher rate of taxes for having used a government service (unfair).

Paying back debts you owe to the government is not extra taxes.
"Paying back debts you owe the government' IS extra taxes if you should not have had to incur the debts in the first place.

No, it's not. You are simply wrong.

I genuinely cannot understand why you take such an interest in whether or not student loans in the US might be forgiven to some extent. It seems absolutely inexplicable.

Because I have an interest in good government and sound thinking.
Also, you don't really have that firm a grasp on the implication of taxes, fees, government spending, the multiplier effect, or other basic economic principles.

I have made a moral argument, and I have corrected the gross mischaracterisation of paying back debt as 'government taxes'.

I am not interested in your assessment of my economic arguments because I didn't make any.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,159
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.
No, nothing is going to come out of the taxpayers' pockets.

The money was spent, in the past. It came out of the taxpayers' pockets then. It's a sunk cost.

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.
It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.
No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

Forgiveness of the repayments is just a tax cut, targeted at former students whose career earnings haven't been as high as was originally anticipated. And it cuts their currently elevated tax rate back to the same rate that others with the same income currently pay.

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.
And when the taxpayer paid the cost for the student, it was with the student's promise to pay the amount back.

The whole point of income taxation is that everyone with the same income pays the same tax, regardless of what government services they might have accessed in the past. We don't charge people additional income tax because they commute more than average on interstate highways, or because they claimed SNAP benefits at some time in the past, or because they live in a place that was struck by a natural disaster and received federal assistance. We just look at income, and tax a percentage of that.

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.
"Nuts" is characterising loan repayments as a tax. It is not one.
Not to anyone who is even remotely economically literate. bilby is correct in that when the gov't forgives a loan repayment has the same economic impact on the borrower as a tax cut. The loan payment has the same immediate economic impact on the borrower as a tax payment.

In essence, bilby's argument rests on the implicit premise that any fees government-funded education should be income-based not service expense based.

bilby said:
Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That characterisation is false and nuts. It ignores everything about how student debts are incurred.
I bold-faced and italicized the part of my response you clearly did not understand. If you did, you'd know your response is nuts.
No, your bolded and italicised part is irrelevant.
This is an indication you still have not read my response with a modicum of understanding. Because if you had, you'd understand that the phrase "argument rests on the implicit premise that " means your response is completely irrelevant.

Furthermore, bilby's argument is that debt-forgiveness has the same effects as a tax cut (not that it is identical to a tax cut) for the borrowers. He is correct on that point.

Whether it has the 'same effect' is irrelevant. bibly said:

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.

That statement is false and nuts.
The discussion is about the policy in the USA about debts in the USA. Hence your comments about Australia is truly pointless.
No, it was not pointless. The point was that repaying a debt is not "paying taxes."
You are simply mistaken. Not that it will stop your repetition of taking quotes of the context of the discusion, and economic illiteracy.
Paying back debts to the government is not "extra taxes."

Bilby, and you as his enabler, wants to falsely equate paying back debts to the government with 'extra taxes', because there is a moral difference between paying back debts you incurred (fair) and being charged a higher rate of taxes for having used a government service (unfair).

Paying back debts you owe to the government is not extra taxes.
"Paying back debts you owe the government' IS extra taxes if you should not have had to incur the debts in the first place.

No, it's not. You are simply wrong.

I genuinely cannot understand why you take such an interest in whether or not student loans in the US might be forgiven to some extent. It seems absolutely inexplicable.

Because I have an interest in good government and sound thinking.
Also, you don't really have that firm a grasp on the implication of taxes, fees, government spending, the multiplier effect, or other basic economic principles.

I have made a moral argument, and I have corrected the gross mischaracterisation of paying back debt as 'government taxes'.

I am not interested in your assessment of my economic arguments because I didn't make any.
Actually, YOU did make an economic argument. You just don't understand economics or taxation well enough to realize you did.

You are operating on the school yard level of S'not fair!
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,932
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.
No, nothing is going to come out of the taxpayers' pockets.

The money was spent, in the past. It came out of the taxpayers' pockets then. It's a sunk cost.

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.
It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.
No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

Forgiveness of the repayments is just a tax cut, targeted at former students whose career earnings haven't been as high as was originally anticipated. And it cuts their currently elevated tax rate back to the same rate that others with the same income currently pay.

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.
And when the taxpayer paid the cost for the student, it was with the student's promise to pay the amount back.

The whole point of income taxation is that everyone with the same income pays the same tax, regardless of what government services they might have accessed in the past. We don't charge people additional income tax because they commute more than average on interstate highways, or because they claimed SNAP benefits at some time in the past, or because they live in a place that was struck by a natural disaster and received federal assistance. We just look at income, and tax a percentage of that.

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.
"Nuts" is characterising loan repayments as a tax. It is not one.
Not to anyone who is even remotely economically literate. bilby is correct in that when the gov't forgives a loan repayment has the same economic impact on the borrower as a tax cut. The loan payment has the same immediate economic impact on the borrower as a tax payment.

In essence, bilby's argument rests on the implicit premise that any fees government-funded education should be income-based not service expense based.

bilby said:
Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That characterisation is false and nuts. It ignores everything about how student debts are incurred.
I bold-faced and italicized the part of my response you clearly did not understand. If you did, you'd know your response is nuts.
No, your bolded and italicised part is irrelevant.
This is an indication you still have not read my response with a modicum of understanding. Because if you had, you'd understand that the phrase "argument rests on the implicit premise that " means your response is completely irrelevant.

Furthermore, bilby's argument is that debt-forgiveness has the same effects as a tax cut (not that it is identical to a tax cut) for the borrowers. He is correct on that point.

Whether it has the 'same effect' is irrelevant. bibly said:

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.

That statement is false and nuts.
The discussion is about the policy in the USA about debts in the USA. Hence your comments about Australia is truly pointless.
No, it was not pointless. The point was that repaying a debt is not "paying taxes."
You are simply mistaken. Not that it will stop your repetition of taking quotes of the context of the discusion, and economic illiteracy.
Paying back debts to the government is not "extra taxes."

Bilby, and you as his enabler, wants to falsely equate paying back debts to the government with 'extra taxes', because there is a moral difference between paying back debts you incurred (fair) and being charged a higher rate of taxes for having used a government service (unfair).

Paying back debts you owe to the government is not extra taxes.
"Paying back debts you owe the government' IS extra taxes if you should not have had to incur the debts in the first place.

No, it's not. You are simply wrong.

I genuinely cannot understand why you take such an interest in whether or not student loans in the US might be forgiven to some extent. It seems absolutely inexplicable.

Because I have an interest in good government and sound thinking.
Also, you don't really have that firm a grasp on the implication of taxes, fees, government spending, the multiplier effect, or other basic economic principles.

I have made a moral argument, and I have corrected the gross mischaracterisation of paying back debt as 'government taxes'.

I am not interested in your assessment of my economic arguments because I didn't make any.
Actually, YOU did make an economic argument. You just don't understand economics or taxation well enough to realize you did.

You are operating on the school yard level of S'not fair!
Sure luv.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,153
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.
No, nothing is going to come out of the taxpayers' pockets.

The money was spent, in the past. It came out of the taxpayers' pockets then. It's a sunk cost.

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.
It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.
No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

Forgiveness of the repayments is just a tax cut, targeted at former students whose career earnings haven't been as high as was originally anticipated. And it cuts their currently elevated tax rate back to the same rate that others with the same income currently pay.

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.
And when the taxpayer paid the cost for the student, it was with the student's promise to pay the amount back.

The whole point of income taxation is that everyone with the same income pays the same tax, regardless of what government services they might have accessed in the past. We don't charge people additional income tax because they commute more than average on interstate highways, or because they claimed SNAP benefits at some time in the past, or because they live in a place that was struck by a natural disaster and received federal assistance. We just look at income, and tax a percentage of that.

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.
"Nuts" is characterising loan repayments as a tax. It is not one.
Not to anyone who is even remotely economically literate. bilby is correct in that when the gov't forgives a loan repayment has the same economic impact on the borrower as a tax cut. The loan payment has the same immediate economic impact on the borrower as a tax payment.

In essence, bilby's argument rests on the implicit premise that any fees government-funded education should be income-based not service expense based.

bilby said:
Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That characterisation is false and nuts. It ignores everything about how student debts are incurred.
I bold-faced and italicized the part of my response you clearly did not understand. If you did, you'd know your response is nuts.
No, your bolded and italicised part is irrelevant.
This is an indication you still have not read my response with a modicum of understanding. Because if you had, you'd understand that the phrase "argument rests on the implicit premise that " means your response is completely irrelevant.

Furthermore, bilby's argument is that debt-forgiveness has the same effects as a tax cut (not that it is identical to a tax cut) for the borrowers. He is correct on that point.

Whether it has the 'same effect' is irrelevant. bibly said:

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.

That statement is false and nuts.
The discussion is about the policy in the USA about debts in the USA. Hence your comments about Australia is truly pointless.
No, it was not pointless. The point was that repaying a debt is not "paying taxes."
You are simply mistaken. Not that it will stop your repetition of taking quotes of the context of the discusion, and economic illiteracy.
Paying back debts to the government is not "extra taxes."

Bilby, and you as his enabler, wants to falsely equate paying back debts to the government with 'extra taxes', because there is a moral difference between paying back debts you incurred (fair) and being charged a higher rate of taxes for having used a government service (unfair).

Paying back debts you owe to the government is not extra taxes.
"Paying back debts you owe the government' IS extra taxes if you should not have had to incur the debts in the first place.

No, it's not. You are simply wrong.

I genuinely cannot understand why you take such an interest in whether or not student loans in the US might be forgiven to some extent. It seems absolutely inexplicable.

Because I have an interest in good government and sound thinking.
If you think your posts are evidence of either, you are mistaken.
Also, you don't really have that firm a grasp on the implication of taxes, fees, government spending, the multiplier effect, or other basic economic principles.

I have made a moral argument, and I have corrected the gross mischaracterisation of paying back debt as 'government taxes'.

I am not interested in your assessment of my economic arguments because I didn't make any.
Technically you are correct, since your position is economically illiterate. But you are responding to an economic argument.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,153
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Bilby, and you as his enabler, wants to falsely equate paying back debts to the government with 'extra taxes', because there is a moral difference between paying back debts you incurred (fair) and being charged a higher rate of taxes for having used a government service (unfair).
I do admire your imagination, but that hallucinatory.

 

Canard DuJour

Veteran Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
1,181
Location
UK
Basic Beliefs
dunno
The Meme that Refuses to Die: Government Debt Must Be Paid Back

No it doesn't. It almost never is. To pay back government debt, you have to run a budget surplus, and while there may be modest surpluses from time to time, they don't add up to more than a minuscule fraction of all the accumulated debt. But don't take it from me, look at the record :

(...)

Governments that issue their own money don’t have to pay off their debts. They actually can’t. In fact, they issue money — the money that’s necessary for a growing economy to operate — by deficit spending.

That leaves the idea that future net ("deficit") govt spending is constrained by previous net govt spending - the idea that "future tax payers will get less".

The evidence is very much to the contrary. Govts, if anything, constrain current spending by debt to GDP ratios (a bit like why you spend more than when you were a teenager). The GDP component of that ratio mainly increases with human skills and education. Apart from natural resources, there isn't really any other significant source of economic growth.
This is the leftist equivalent of tax cuts pay for themselves. It's no more correct.

The difference is evidence. There's plenty evidence of positive multiplier effects from net govt spending - esp education, infrastructure, healthcare - but little to none that tax cuts for the rich have any such effect.

And anyone can verify that the occasional budget surpluses don't add up to more than a minuscule fraction of all the accumulated "debt".
Exactly the same crap as the right is peddling.

Of course there's a multiplier. Government spending has a multiplier, tax cuts have a multiplier.

Then it doesn't follow from current deficits that future tax payers will get less.

The question is whether the multiplier is large enough to be a net positive.

And, as I just said, there's plenty evidence of that. And, no, a multiplier of 1 would still be a net positive. And it's not like <1 just isn't "large enough" but that it diverts resources from other activity. What you say suggests that you are indeed getting confused with some "crap the right is peddling".
 
Last edited:

Canard DuJour

Veteran Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
1,181
Location
UK
Basic Beliefs
dunno
Fifteen Fatal Fallacies of Financial Fundamentalism

- William Vickrey, Nobel Laureate in Economics

Fallacy 1

Deficits are considered to represent sinful profligate spending at the expense of future generations who will be left with a smaller endowment of invested capital. This fallacy seems to stem from a false analogy to borrowing by individuals.

Current reality is almost the exact opposite. Deficits add to the net disposable income of individuals, to the extent that government disbursements that constitute income to recipients exceed that abstracted from disposable income in taxes, fees, and other charges. This added purchasing power, when spent, provides markets for private production, inducing producers to invest in additional plant capacity, which will form part of the real heritage left to the future. This is in addition to whatever public investment takes place in infrastructure, education, research, and the like. Larger deficits, sufficient to recycle savings out of a growing gross domestic product (GDP) in excess of what can be recycled by profit-seeking private investment, are not an economic sin but an economic necessity. Deficits in excess of a gap growing as a result of the maximum feasible growth in real output might indeed cause problems, but we are nowhere near that level.

Even the analogy itself is faulty. If General Motors, AT&T, and individual households had been required to balance their budgets in the manner being applied to the Federal government, there would be no corporate bonds, no mortgages, no bank loans, and many fewer automobiles, telephones, and houses.

 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
30,559
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
I don't know how education funding is handled in Australia but in the US, many student loans have unconscionably high rates of interest, and are given to 18 year olds who lack the experience, understanding or finances to understand the financial commitment and its implications for potentially several decades of their lives. Unfortunately, parents are far too often equally ignorant and cannot or do not provide the needed counseling. This is simply fact in the US. To continually insist that students knowingly took out the loans is not correct as their 'knowledge' was not based on actual fact based information or the understanding of what the implications of such loans, which easily exceed 100K in many cases will do to their future financial security.
Also admissions counselors (salespersons) will encourage taking out loans to potential students.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,234
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Compare the number of positions asking for a certain degree with the number of people who want that degree. The state should provide more funding for degrees where the ratio of ask to want is higher.

The government is definitely not smart enough to know what courses are valuable it will be valuable in the future.
Note that I'm talking degrees, not specific classes.
The government is t really a good predictor of where the economy will be in 4 or 10 years. Think of all the kinds of jobs there are now that didn’t exist 15 years ago.

Unless you are going into a very specific field, your major doesn’t matter much. Sure, it does if you want to be an accountant or a nurse or a teacher. Beyond that? Not so much.
Really, now? You don't realize there are degrees with very poor job prospects because there's so little demand for the skill? Such basically worthless degrees are a fair chunk of the student loan problem.
Loren, you seem to be under the impression that an undergraduate degree is the end of learning and growth. Let me offer you some examples that refute your thesis:

1. We have a person in our math modeling group with a forestry degree. He learned a lot in college about how to think and learn and put things together holistically. It included some math, which he also liked. Then he took a couple of weeks of classes from the modeling software firm and now he models temperature gradients.
2. Medical schools do not want all of their candidates to be biology majors. In fact, they look for students with liberal arts degrees because they will learn biology in medical school but not how to understand people.


Those are just two examples of how your plan would harm the economy.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,440
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
It's also just, you know, quantitatively wrong. Some degrees have more market value than others, but there is no such thing as a worthless degree - all college degrees increase the lifetime earnings of those who earn them. On average, US workers with a bachelor's degree outearn their non-degreed competitors by more than double, and the gap has been widing, not narrowing, over the last few decades.

It's not even true that humanities degrees necessarily underperform the others; the 2014 megastudy by the AAC&U found that although in the early career stages there were strong benefits to choosing a STEM field, these leveled out over time as Humanities majors outcompeted their fellow workers in the "soft skills" that lead to promotion, ultimately outearning the average STEM graduate by around $2,000 a year. This is not an enormous difference, but it is unequivocally not a loss. Professional degrees still outearn everyone, as you would expect, but degree A is not "worthless" because degree B earns more. That isn't what worthless means.

Are we going to murder physics or mathematics degrees because you can make more money as a hedge fund manager? If so, our society will go extinct while China rises. You cannot simply abandon useful knowledge in pursuit of personal profit and expect either property to continue to increase.
 
Last edited:

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,284
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Exactly the same crap as the right is peddling.

Of course there's a multiplier. Government spending has a multiplier, tax cuts have a multiplier.

Then it doesn't follow from current deficits that future tax payers will get less.

The question is whether the multiplier is large enough to be a net positive.

And, as I just said, there's plenty evidence of that. And, no, a multiplier of 1 would still be a net positive. And it's not like <1 just isn't "large enough" but that it diverts resources from other activity. What you say suggests that you are indeed getting confused with some "crap the right is peddling".
You're not addressing my point.

The right justifies tax cuts on the basis that they will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for themselves (to date, apparently never.) You're making the exact same argument that education spending will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for itself (for which you are providing no evidence.)
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,159
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Exactly the same crap as the right is peddling.

Of course there's a multiplier. Government spending has a multiplier, tax cuts have a multiplier.

Then it doesn't follow from current deficits that future tax payers will get less.

The question is whether the multiplier is large enough to be a net positive.

And, as I just said, there's plenty evidence of that. And, no, a multiplier of 1 would still be a net positive. And it's not like <1 just isn't "large enough" but that it diverts resources from other activity. What you say suggests that you are indeed getting confused with some "crap the right is peddling".
You're not addressing my point.

The right justifies tax cuts on the basis that they will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for themselves (to date, apparently never.) You're making the exact same argument that education spending will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for itself (for which you are providing no evidence.)
Well, we won't know unless it happens, right?
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,932
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Also, you don't really have that firm a grasp on the implication of taxes, fees, government spending, the multiplier effect, or other basic economic principles.

I have made a moral argument, and I have corrected the gross mischaracterisation of paying back debt as 'government taxes'.

I am not interested in your assessment of my economic arguments because I didn't make any.
Technically you are correct, since your position is economically illiterate. But you are responding to an economic argument.
What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,932
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Bilby, and you as his enabler, wants to falsely equate paying back debts to the government with 'extra taxes', because there is a moral difference between paying back debts you incurred (fair) and being charged a higher rate of taxes for having used a government service (unfair).
I do admire your imagination, but that hallucinatory.

That is exactly what bilby was doing and exactly what you keep defending.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,935
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Exactly the same crap as the right is peddling.

Of course there's a multiplier. Government spending has a multiplier, tax cuts have a multiplier.

Then it doesn't follow from current deficits that future tax payers will get less.

The question is whether the multiplier is large enough to be a net positive.

And, as I just said, there's plenty evidence of that. And, no, a multiplier of 1 would still be a net positive. And it's not like <1 just isn't "large enough" but that it diverts resources from other activity. What you say suggests that you are indeed getting confused with some "crap the right is peddling".
You're not addressing my point.

The right justifies tax cuts on the basis that they will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for themselves (to date, apparently never.) You're making the exact same argument that education spending will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for itself (for which you are providing no evidence.)
I don't think anyone is arguing that it will necessarily grow the economy.

What it will necessarily do is lead to a lot of people being less of idiots and tolerating less idiocy, and while I expect that can't do anything but grow the economy it will certainly grow my ability to tolerate people.

That is a magic no amount of dollars could buy, or pay me off of wanting.

I might be willing to pay in body parts for that, even if it never led to another dime in my pocket.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,153
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?
Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy are
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and
2) the forgiveness of the debt by gov’t necessarily harms taxpayers.
 

Canard DuJour

Veteran Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
1,181
Location
UK
Basic Beliefs
dunno
Exactly the same crap as the right is peddling.

Of course there's a multiplier. Government spending has a multiplier, tax cuts have a multiplier.

Then it doesn't follow from current deficits that future tax payers will get less.

The question is whether the multiplier is large enough to be a net positive.

And, as I just said, there's plenty evidence of that. And, no, a multiplier of 1 would still be a net positive. And it's not like <1 just isn't "large enough" but that it diverts resources from other activity. What you say suggests that you are indeed getting confused with some "crap the right is peddling".
You're not addressing my point.

Because it's not really addressing mine.

The right justifies tax cuts on the basis that they will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for themselves (to date, apparently never.) You're making the exact same argument that education spending will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for itself (for which you are providing no evidence.)

Which is a misunderstanding of my point due to your poor understanding of public finances.

If the govt "deficit" spends a dollar, then both GDP and govt debt increase by a dollar, regardless of subsequent multiplier effects. The nominal stock of govt debt (almost) always increases while the debt-to-GDP ratio goes up and down all the time. There's no reason to think future tax payers necessarily get less as a consequence of the former - unless you confuse that with household finances.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,932
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?
Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy are
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and
That was your interpretation of bilby's claim, and I didn't even say it was wrong. I said calling them the same thing was nuts.

2) the forgiveness of the debt by gov’t necessarily harms taxpayers.
Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,159
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?
Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy are
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and
That was your interpretation of bilby's claim, and I didn't even say it was wrong. I said calling them the same thing was nuts.

2) the forgiveness of the debt by gov’t necessarily harms taxpayers.
Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.
It ‘harms’ taxpayers only if all you are concerned with is money and how it balances directly and not if you disregard the benefits realized not merely for the student borrower but for society in general—because of the services provided directly by the ability of the student to be a doctor, lawyer, teacher, banker, whatever —and benefit in the increase in taxes the student borrower will pay as they earn more money than without a degree. Harder to quantify directly but real nonetheless is the benefit to society of having a more educated population. One of the most concrete benefits in recent times is the differences in voter behavior depending on level of education. Another is differences in behavior with regards to mask wearing and vaccination.
 
Top Bottom