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

Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,683
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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?
And that's not addressing it, either.

We have two relevant data points that I am aware of:

Poland: Rebuilding the education system from the ground up with a goal of fairness didn't change the outcome.

Kansas: Throwing 10 figures at trying to improve education for the disadvantaged did nothing.

And a quasi-point: The Cultural Revolution stripped away wealth--but there's still a considerable relationship between pre-Revolution wealth and how the next generation fared. It's not as clear because educational advantages could persist.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
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
Money is certainly a concern but it is more than that. You damage the moral fabric of society when you use somebody else's money to forgive debts because you personally feel sorry for delinquent debtors.

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.
You are very confused. You are counting the value of the education as a benefit in favour of forgiving the debt. But the value of the education has already been realised when the person got it. Forgiving debt does not cause the value of the education to appear.

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.
Again, you are confused. If you want to talk about the value of education and why society should make it free to end users, you can have that conversation, but I am talking about the forgiveness of debts with taxpayer money.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,581
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
Money is certainly a concern but it is more than that. You damage the moral fabric of society when you use somebody else's money to forgive debts because you personally feel sorry for delinquent debtors.

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.
You are very confused. You are counting the value of the education as a benefit in favour of forgiving the debt. But the value of the education has already been realised when the person got it. Forgiving debt does not cause the value of the education to appear.

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.
Again, you are confused. If you want to talk about the value of education and why society should make it free to end users, you can have that conversation, but I am talking about the forgiveness of debts with taxpayer money.
No—the value of the education received is realized for the rest of the student’s life, and is extended to any family the student might have now or in the future, any community that is includes the student and society as a whole.

The value of a doctor’s degree or a nurse’s or a teacher’s is realized by the patients, the students the doctor has—and is multiplied by whatever good those individuals do, however they benefit society, any wealth they accrue, any decisions sciveries they make, any inventions, any further students, patients, etc. and their descendents.

The benefits of education are not limited to your imagination or understanding. Thankfully.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,683
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.)
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.
The argument I was responding to said it would pay for itself in growing the economy. You're trying to move the goalposts.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,683
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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.
By this logic we simply abolish taxes and fund the government with debt.

I'm sure you know what happens when you do that.

Why is it somehow ok when it's "good" spending?
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,683
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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.
In other words, any government spending is good so long as you approve of the purpose.

That's the current Republican approach. Are you now a QOPer??
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,581
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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.
In other words, any government spending is good so long as you approve of the purpose.

That's the current Republican approach. Are you now a QOPer??
In other words, you’ve no rational argument to counter mine so you Troy out this garbage accusation. You’re better than that Loren.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,341
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
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.
Which is an economically illiterate conclusion.

Metaphor said:
Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.
I suggest you read post 172. Whether or not there is harm is ultimately an empirical question. It is economic illiteracy to claim it must harm taxpayers.
 
Last edited:

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
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.
Which is an economically illiterate conclusion.
They are not the same thing, and your babbling that uttering a basic fact is 'economically illiterate' is nuts.

Metaphor said:
Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.
I suggest you read post 172. Whether or not there is harm is ultimately an empirical question. It is economic illiteracy to claim it must harm taxpayers.
It causes moral harm to selectively forgive debts, using other people's money, because bilby and Toni have pity for the debtors.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,721
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
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.
By this logic we simply abolish taxes and fund the government with debt.

I'm sure you know what happens when you do that.

Why is it somehow ok when it's "good" spending?
We already fund the government with debt.

Doing so is, of course, inflationary. So something must be done to deflate the economy. One of the big things that is currently done is to destroy some money via taxation. But that's not the only possibility.

Abolishing taxes would be a bad idea for a number of reasons, but the idea that doing so would in any way affect the government's ability to spend is simply false. It's also false to claim that borrowing is the only alternative to taxation. The government can spend money without doing either.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,581
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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?
And that's not addressing it, either.

We have two relevant data points that I am aware of:

Poland: Rebuilding the education system from the ground up with a goal of fairness didn't change the outcome.

Kansas: Throwing 10 figures at trying to improve education for the disadvantaged did nothing.

And a quasi-point: The Cultural Revolution stripped away wealth--but there's still a considerable relationship between pre-Revolution wealth and how the next generation fared. It's not as clear because educational advantages could persist.
Your point is what, exactly? Poland (without any links, context or anything other than a single sentence--excuse me: incomplete sentence. Kansas, again with out any data, context, etc. Simply your say so.

I suppose you mean China when you talk about the Cultural Revolution? Again, your point is so unclear and unformed that it is not possible to address it.

Your 'data points' are not data. Their relevance is undetermined.

However, we DO know that in the US, higher levels of education correlates with significantly higher earnings. This effect is actually smaller in the years right after entering the workforce but escalates throughout the working careers of people.

People with college degrees usually outearn people without college degrees by a significant amount, regardless of what that degree is in.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,654
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
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?
And that's not addressing it, either.

We have two relevant data points that I am aware of:

Poland: Rebuilding the education system from the ground up with a goal of fairness didn't change the outcome.

Kansas: Throwing 10 figures at trying to improve education for the disadvantaged did nothing.

And a quasi-point: The Cultural Revolution stripped away wealth--but there's still a considerable relationship between pre-Revolution wealth and how the next generation fared. It's not as clear because educational advantages could persist.
Your point is what, exactly? Poland (without any links, context or anything other than a single sentence--excuse me: incomplete sentence. Kansas, again with out any data, context, etc. Simply your say so.

I suppose you mean China when you talk about the Cultural Revolution? Again, your point is so unclear and unformed that it is not possible to address it.

Your 'data points' are not data. Their relevance is undetermined.

However, we DO know that in the US, higher levels of education correlates with significantly higher earnings. This effect is actually smaller in the years right after entering the workforce but escalates throughout the working careers of people.

People with college degrees usually outearn people without college degrees by a significant amount, regardless of what that degree is in.
And either way, people with college degrees usually are far less problematic and annoying to those around them, too, and you can't really put a price tag on that.

It's "shut up and take my money" territory to have some mostly-effective inoculation against commonly avoidable ignorance.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,342
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,341
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
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.
Which is an economically illiterate conclusion.
They are not the same thing, and your babbling that uttering a basic fact is 'economically illiterate' is nuts.
In previous discussions, you've demonstrated that your difficulty in distinguishing between actual facts and your beliefs. What exactly is this "basic fact" you are raving about?
Metaphor said:
Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.
I suggest you read post 172. Whether or not there is harm is ultimately an empirical question. It is economic illiteracy to claim it must harm taxpayers.
It causes moral harm to selectively forgive debts, using other people's money, because bilby and Toni have pity for the debtors.
Your claim has so many unsubstantiated assumptions that it is simply hot air. It depends on the "morals", and whether or not the forgiveness is agreed to by the "other people" just to name a few of them.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,275
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
The company my wife works for got a PPP covid relief loan of $125,000. The loan was forgiven by the government. The loan basically went straight into the pockets of the six shareholders.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,014
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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?
And that's not addressing it, either.

We have two relevant data points that I am aware of:

Poland: Rebuilding the education system from the ground up with a goal of fairness didn't change the outcome.

Kansas: Throwing 10 figures at trying to improve education for the disadvantaged did nothing.
M'gosh. You saying turning around a systemically racist system takes more than money... but rather lots of time, lots of money, and lots of effort to rip through the social inertia?

Just throwing money doesn't work... and not giving it lots of time doesn't work either. Especially when we are still poisoning the brains of inner city youth with lead. Add to that, the issues of the drug war being waged (whether intentionally or not) at people who aren't quite as pale, and then there are those additional social issues that have needlessly perpetuated certain conditions.

In other words, reversing systemically induced race based poverty isn't as simple just throwing in money.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,683
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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.
In other words, any government spending is good so long as you approve of the purpose.

That's the current Republican approach. Are you now a QOPer??
In other words, you’ve no rational argument to counter mine so you Troy out this garbage accusation. You’re better than that Loren.
You're still not addressing my point: What makes government spending for your wants harmless but the same thing from the Republicans bad?
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,683
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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?
And that's not addressing it, either.

We have two relevant data points that I am aware of:

Poland: Rebuilding the education system from the ground up with a goal of fairness didn't change the outcome.

Kansas: Throwing 10 figures at trying to improve education for the disadvantaged did nothing.

And a quasi-point: The Cultural Revolution stripped away wealth--but there's still a considerable relationship between pre-Revolution wealth and how the next generation fared. It's not as clear because educational advantages could persist.
Your point is what, exactly? Poland (without any links, context or anything other than a single sentence--excuse me: incomplete sentence. Kansas, again with out any data, context, etc. Simply your say so.

I suppose you mean China when you talk about the Cultural Revolution? Again, your point is so unclear and unformed that it is not possible to address it.

Your 'data points' are not data. Their relevance is undetermined.

However, we DO know that in the US, higher levels of education correlates with significantly higher earnings. This effect is actually smaller in the years right after entering the workforce but escalates throughout the working careers of people.

People with college degrees usually outearn people without college degrees by a significant amount, regardless of what that degree is in.
These are all cases that have been discussed on here before and were not discredited.

What I'm talking about is that we have seen that trying to pump up schooling for the disadvantaged doesn't improve outcomes.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,683
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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?
And that's not addressing it, either.

We have two relevant data points that I am aware of:

Poland: Rebuilding the education system from the ground up with a goal of fairness didn't change the outcome.

Kansas: Throwing 10 figures at trying to improve education for the disadvantaged did nothing.
M'gosh. You saying turning around a systemically racist system takes more than money... but rather lots of time, lots of money, and lots of effort to rip through the social inertia?

Just throwing money doesn't work... and not giving it lots of time doesn't work either. Especially when we are still poisoning the brains of inner city youth with lead. Add to that, the issues of the drug war being waged (whether intentionally or not) at people who aren't quite as pale, and then there are those additional social issues that have needlessly perpetuated certain conditions.

In other words, reversing systemically induced race based poverty isn't as simple just throwing in money.
And note that I've long called for abolishing the drug war. Of the recreational drugs the only ones I think should be highly restricted are the ones used for date rape. The other stuff should all either be outright legal (although I would highly restrict advertising for it) or available to addicts by prescription.

And I do agree with anti-lead efforts. Flint was an abomination that should have resulted in plenty of jail time being handed out.

Address causes. The schools are a symptom, not a cause.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,342
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice. Not to mention (of late) they hold more bonds as a whole than the federal reserve (another private entity). This make believe money effects us whether in public or private hands. The whole monitory system is a circus where some of us benefit the most. Can't talk about public debt as if private debt isn't intertwined with it. It's one big bowl of the ugliest soup you can imagine. Too bad im from the hood and couldn't afford an education else I'd give you a theory of everything level analysis of this bullshit we call an economy.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,581
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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?
And that's not addressing it, either.

We have two relevant data points that I am aware of:

Poland: Rebuilding the education system from the ground up with a goal of fairness didn't change the outcome.

Kansas: Throwing 10 figures at trying to improve education for the disadvantaged did nothing.

And a quasi-point: The Cultural Revolution stripped away wealth--but there's still a considerable relationship between pre-Revolution wealth and how the next generation fared. It's not as clear because educational advantages could persist.
Your point is what, exactly? Poland (without any links, context or anything other than a single sentence--excuse me: incomplete sentence. Kansas, again with out any data, context, etc. Simply your say so.

I suppose you mean China when you talk about the Cultural Revolution? Again, your point is so unclear and unformed that it is not possible to address it.

Your 'data points' are not data. Their relevance is undetermined.

However, we DO know that in the US, higher levels of education correlates with significantly higher earnings. This effect is actually smaller in the years right after entering the workforce but escalates throughout the working careers of people.

People with college degrees usually outearn people without college degrees by a significant amount, regardless of what that degree is in.
These are all cases that have been discussed on here before and were not discredited.

What I'm talking about is that we have seen that trying to pump up schooling for the disadvantaged doesn't improve outcomes.
This isn’t just a different goal post, it’s another discussion altogether and one totally unrelated to forgiving student debt.

For some suggestions at addressing educational disparities preK-12, Jimmy Higgins’ post #216 is a good place to start.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.
Who eats the loss? Kinda shitty to put that on responsible borrowers and tax payers.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,342
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.
Who eats the loss? Kinda shitty to put that on responsible borrowers and tax payers.

We eat the loss on infrastructure that some in the private sector use loopholes to pay next to nothing for.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,342
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
We eat the loss when the tax break receiving job creators don't create enough jobs and people get unemployment payments.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,341
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
The company my wife works for got a PPP covid relief loan of $125,000. The loan was forgiven by the government. The loan basically went straight

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.
Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle. If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,342
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
We eat the loss when the tax break receiving job creators don't create enough jobs and people get unemployment payments.
Employers pay into the unemployment fund.

And then Employer bills the consumer (AKA Tax Payer) to cover the expense and there is absolutely nothing the government can do about that.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
We eat the loss when the tax break receiving job creators don't create enough jobs and people get unemployment payments.
Employers pay into the unemployment fund.

And then Employer bills the consumer (AKA Tax Payer) to cover the expense and there is absolutely nothing the government can do about that.
Hang on, are saying that increased corporate taxation is simply passed onto to the public/consumer?
 

Canard DuJour

Veteran Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
1,181
Location
UK
Basic Beliefs
dunno
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.
By this logic we simply abolish taxes and fund the government with debt.

I'm sure you know what happens when you do that.

Yeah, you'd devalue the currency. So by this logic we should, in fact, not abolish taxes.

Not because the govt needs your money, but because it needs you to need its money.

Why is it somehow ok when it's "good" spending?

Who says that? The multiplier effect doesn't care whether you're building the Interstate Highway System or the Wehrmacht.
 

Canard DuJour

Veteran Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
1,181
Location
UK
Basic Beliefs
dunno
I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Good question. I'll let J.K. Galbraith explain it:

“To put things crudely, there are two ways to get the increase in total spending that we call “economic growth.” One way is for government to spend. The other is for banks to lend. Leaving aside short-term adjustments like increased net exports or financial innovation, that’s basically all there is. Governments and banks are the two entities with the power to create something from nothing. If total spending power is to grow, one or the other of these two great financial motors –public deficits or private loans– has to be in action.

For ordinary people, public budget deficits, despite their bad reputation, are much better than private loans. Deficits put money in private pockets. Private households get more cash. They own that cash free and clear, and they can spend it as they like. If they wish, they can also convert it into interest-earning government bonds or they can repay their debts. This is called an increase in “net financial wealth.” Ordinary people benefit, but there is nothing in it for banks.

And this, in the simplest terms, explains the deficit phobia of Wall Street, the corporate media and the right-wing economists. Bankers don’t like budget deficits because they compete with bank loans as a source of growth. When a bank makes a loan, cash balances in private hands also go up. But now the cash is not owned free and clear. There is a contractual obligation to pay interest and to repay principal. If the enterprise defaults, there may be an asset left over –a house or factory or company– that will then become the property of the bank. It’s easy to see why bankers love private credit but hate public deficits.”
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,342
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
We eat the loss when the tax break receiving job creators don't create enough jobs and people get unemployment payments.
Employers pay into the unemployment fund.

And then Employer bills the consumer (AKA Tax Payer) to cover the expense and there is absolutely nothing the government can do about that.
Hang on, are saying that increased corporate taxation is simply passed onto to the public/consumer?
Did I not call it a circus?
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,342
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Good question. I'll let J.K. Galbraith explain it:

“To put things crudely, there are two ways to get the increase in total spending that we call “economic growth.” One way is for government to spend. The other is for banks to lend. Leaving aside short-term adjustments like increased net exports or financial innovation, that’s basically all there is. Governments and banks are the two entities with the power to create something from nothing. If total spending power is to grow, one or the other of these two great financial motors –public deficits or private loans– has to be in action.

For ordinary people, public budget deficits, despite their bad reputation, are much better than private loans. Deficits put money in private pockets. Private households get more cash. They own that cash free and clear, and they can spend it as they like. If they wish, they can also convert it into interest-earning government bonds or they can repay their debts. This is called an increase in “net financial wealth.” Ordinary people benefit, but there is nothing in it for banks.

And this, in the simplest terms, explains the deficit phobia of Wall Street, the corporate media and the right-wing economists. Bankers don’t like budget deficits because they compete with bank loans as a source of growth. When a bank makes a loan, cash balances in private hands also go up. But now the cash is not owned free and clear. There is a contractual obligation to pay interest and to repay principal. If the enterprise defaults, there may be an asset left over –a house or factory or company– that will then become the property of the bank. It’s easy to see why bankers love private credit but hate public deficits.”

Now that is the circus I'm talking about! The Federal Reserve (Being a special Disney District for the Federal Government) acts as a public entity when it buys bonds so said federal government can operate (including giving loans).

The same Federal Reserve acts as a private entity and pulls money out of its ass to give to private banks with interest. They say other taxpayers will have to cover the costs of forgiven loans as if the government didn't sell bonds that EVERYBODY has to pay for. All this while the private side is in the same circus ring thus I wonder why it doesn't get as much scrutiny.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,342
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Maybe some day really brilliant people will get together and come up with a more.efficent monitary system. What we have no works but has it's flaws since the dumb white men that came up with it didn't think about everything.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.
Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt
The company my wife works for got a PPP covid relief loan of $125,000. The loan was forgiven by the government. The loan basically went straight

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.
Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.
It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.
You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.
Who eats the loss? Kinda shitty to put that on responsible borrowers and tax payers.
Yes, I spoke too hastily with respect to non-natural persons and the interaction with multiple parties.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,342
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
So yeah, how are government bonds backed anyway? Ya know that stuff the private sector is heavily invested in for profit. I thought the good ole USA sells bonds to fund its operation. What backs those bonds? What does the USA use to back those bonds? What does the private sector do with the profits from the government bonds they hold? I really want to understand this circus created by a bunch of European intellectuals.

Doesn't the government get all it's money from the Federal reserve selling bonds? Ya know, that loan money that Biden is half ass forgiving while the bonds remain secured.

Who pays the bonds?

I'm not even considering the hocus-pocus called the federal reserve and what they do with the Bonds they purchase when they're allegedly a non profit organization.


Does it all just go poof?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,341
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.
Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt
The company my wife works for got a PPP covid relief loan of $125,000. The loan was forgiven by the government. The loan basically went straight

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.
Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.
It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.
You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.
Your rationale is based solely your idiosyncratice morality.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.
Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt
The company my wife works for got a PPP covid relief loan of $125,000. The loan was forgiven by the government. The loan basically went straight

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.
Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.
It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.
You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.
Your rationale is based solely your idiosyncratice morality.
"People ought keep promises" is hardly an idiosyncratic moral belief
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,342
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.
Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt
The company my wife works for got a PPP covid relief loan of $125,000. The loan was forgiven by the government. The loan basically went straight

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.
Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.
It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.
You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.
Your rationale is based solely your idiosyncratice morality.
"People ought keep promises" is hardly an idiosyncratic moral belief
Aren't those promises kept in government bonds? I presume tax players cover the bonds. Am I wrong?
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.
Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt
The company my wife works for got a PPP covid relief loan of $125,000. The loan was forgiven by the government. The loan basically went straight

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.
Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.
It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.
You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.
Your rationale is based solely your idiosyncratice morality.
"People ought keep promises" is hardly an idiosyncratic moral belief
Aren't those promises kept in government bonds? I presume tax players cover the bonds. Am I wrong?
When a debtor promises to pay back a loan, they ought keep that promise. If laughing dog thinks this is a controversial "idiosyncratic" moral opinion instead of a ubiquitous belief shared by billions across time and cultures, laughing dog is wrong.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,342
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.
Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt
The company my wife works for got a PPP covid relief loan of $125,000. The loan was forgiven by the government. The loan basically went straight

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.
Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.
It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.
You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.
Your rationale is based solely your idiosyncratice morality.
"People ought keep promises" is hardly an idiosyncratic moral belief
Aren't those promises kept in government bonds? I presume tax players cover the bonds. Am I wrong?
When a debtor promises to pay back a loan, they ought keep that promise. If laughing dog thinks this is a controversial "idiosyncratic" moral opinion instead of a ubiquitous belief shared by billions across time and cultures, laughing dog is wrong.
So the bonds aren't backed by tax players.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,654
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Not every promise stands to be kept, plain and simple.

People in general recognize that promises made asymmetrically are generally null and void. Most people I know recognize that ANY decision with long term consequences be reviewed carefully and discussed for some time before such decisions are allowed of young people.

Financial decisions are one of the most important ones: student loans are set up like the mouth of a funnel.

I don't believe the fish deserves to be eaten for biting the hook, and I certainly don't accept in society the act of setting out a snare for human beings on the path to education.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,341
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.
Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt
The company my wife works for got a PPP covid relief loan of $125,000. The loan was forgiven by the government. The loan basically went straight

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.
Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.
It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.
You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.
Your rationale is based solely your idiosyncratice morality.
"People ought keep promises" is hardly an idiosyncratic moral belief
Aren't those promises kept in government bonds? I presume tax players cover the bonds. Am I wrong?
When a debtor promises to pay back a loan, they ought keep that promise. If laughing dog thinks this is a controversial "idiosyncratic" moral opinion instead of a ubiquitous belief shared by billions across time and cultures, laughing dog is wrong.
The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.
Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt
The company my wife works for got a PPP covid relief loan of $125,000. The loan was forgiven by the government. The loan basically went straight

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.
Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.
It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.
You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.
Your rationale is based solely your idiosyncratice morality.
"People ought keep promises" is hardly an idiosyncratic moral belief
Aren't those promises kept in government bonds? I presume tax players cover the bonds. Am I wrong?
When a debtor promises to pay back a loan, they ought keep that promise. If laughing dog thinks this is a controversial "idiosyncratic" moral opinion instead of a ubiquitous belief shared by billions across time and cultures, laughing dog is wrong.
That is just another straw man. The issue under discussion is not borrowers refusing to repay a loan, but the lender voluntarily forgiving repayment.

You are the one claiming the voluntary forgiveness is somehow immoral without any real justification other than "waaah, me think it is immoral".
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,341
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.
Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt
The company my wife works for got a PPP covid relief loan of $125,000. The loan was forgiven by the government. The loan basically went straight

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.
Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.
It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.
You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.
Your rationale is based solely your idiosyncratice morality.
"People ought keep promises" is hardly an idiosyncratic moral belief
The discussion is about lenders voluntarily allowing debtors to forego repayment. No one is saying people ought to break their promise to repay a loan. So your characterization is s either an incredible stupid straw man or another example of intellectual dishonesty.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.
Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt
The company my wife works for got a PPP covid relief loan of $125,000. The loan was forgiven by the government. The loan basically went straight

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.
Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.
It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.
You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.
Your rationale is based solely your idiosyncratice morality.
"People ought keep promises" is hardly an idiosyncratic moral belief
Aren't those promises kept in government bonds? I presume tax players cover the bonds. Am I wrong?
When a debtor promises to pay back a loan, they ought keep that promise. If laughing dog thinks this is a controversial "idiosyncratic" moral opinion instead of a ubiquitous belief shared by billions across time and cultures, laughing dog is wrong.
The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.
Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt
The company my wife works for got a PPP covid relief loan of $125,000. The loan was forgiven by the government. The loan basically went straight

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.
Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.
It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.
You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.
Your rationale is based solely your idiosyncratice morality.
"People ought keep promises" is hardly an idiosyncratic moral belief
Aren't those promises kept in government bonds? I presume tax players cover the bonds. Am I wrong?
When a debtor promises to pay back a loan, they ought keep that promise. If laughing dog thinks this is a controversial "idiosyncratic" moral opinion instead of a ubiquitous belief shared by billions across time and cultures, laughing dog is wrong.
That is just another straw man. The issue under discussion is not borrowers refusing to repay a loan, but the lender voluntarily forgiving repayment.

You are the one claiming the voluntary forgiveness is somehow immoral without any real justification other than "waaah, me think it is immoral".
Voluntary forgiveness for no good reason, where people other than you are picking up the tab, is immoral.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.
Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt
The company my wife works for got a PPP covid relief loan of $125,000. The loan was forgiven by the government. The loan basically went straight

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.
Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.
It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.
You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.
Your rationale is based solely your idiosyncratice morality.
"People ought keep promises" is hardly an idiosyncratic moral belief
The discussion is about lenders voluntarily allowing debtors to forego repayment. No one is saying people ought to break their promise to repay a loan. So your characterization is s either an incredible stupid straw man or another example of intellectual dishonesty.
To forgive debt for no good reason undermines the general moral duty of keeping promises you made.

To forgive debt for no good reason, using other people's money, when the debtees were promised repayment, is actively immoral. The government is going back on its own promise to taxpayers.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Not every promise stands to be kept, plain and simple.
And some debts ought be forgiven, in certain circumstances. Nobody has made any compelling argument why these debts should be forgiven.

People in general recognize that promises made asymmetrically are generally null and void.
No, they don't recognise that. All kinds of deals are made asymmetrically. They're still valid.


Most people I know recognize that ANY decision with long term consequences be reviewed carefully and discussed for some time before such decisions are allowed of young people.
Like cutting their genitals off?

Financial decisions are one of the most important ones: student loans are set up like the mouth of a funnel.

I don't believe the fish deserves to be eaten for biting the hook, and I certainly don't accept in society the act of setting out a snare for human beings on the path to education.
If you think being given money to build your personal capital is analogous to 'snaring' human beings you are out of touch and out of your mind.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,341
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Voluntary forgiveness for no good reason, where people other than you are picking up the tab, is immoral.
Since you have not provided a shred of reality-based evidence that
1) there is no good reason for the proposed policy, or
2) that other people are necessarily against picking up the tab, or
3) other people are actually going to end up picking up the tab,

it seems you are engaging in your usual form form of abstract and absurd virtue signalling,
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Voluntary forgiveness for no good reason, where people other than you are picking up the tab, is immoral.
Since you have not provided a shred of reality-based evidence that
1) there is no good reason for the proposed policy, or
2) that other people are necessarily against picking up the tab, or
3) other people are actually going to end up picking up the tab,

it seems you are engaging in your usual form form of abstract and absurd virtue signalling,
I'm not the one proposing the forgiveness of student debts. The people proposing it have to make the arguments for it.
 
Top Bottom