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

Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,091
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Assuming there is exploitation of students by universities, it doesn't. But it would permit students to discharge their debts.
So we just let the problem go on?
Student loan forgiveness does eliminate one problem: a heavy drag on students with significant student debt. But here you touch on something that I don’t think has been touched on before: we cannot continue funding higher education by lending 18 year olds tens of thousands of dollars each year in order to pay for their schooling.

We really do need to recommit to public funding of education, at least at the levels it was supported in the 1960’s-1970’s. In the 1970’s states provided 65% of the funding fir state universities. Today, states provide less than half of that level of funding. At the same time, the necessity of holding a university degree in order to have financial stability has increased.

Student loan forgiveness does need to happen—now. But so does a commitment on the part of states to fund state colleges and universities. Forgiving student loans is a bandaid—a temporary fix of a much larger and more complex problem.
I have been banging on about the need for subsidy of periodic education for almost a decade.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,677
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Assuming there is exploitation of students by universities, it doesn't. But it would permit students to discharge their debts.
So we just let the problem go on?
Student loan forgiveness does eliminate one problem: a heavy drag on students with significant student debt. But here you touch on something that I don’t think has been touched on before: we cannot continue funding higher education by lending 18 year olds tens of thousands of dollars each year in order to pay for their schooling.

We really do need to recommit to public funding of education, at least at the levels it was supported in the 1960’s-1970’s. In the 1970’s states provided 65% of the funding fir state universities. Today, states provide less than half of that level of funding. At the same time, the necessity of holding a university degree in order to have financial stability has increased.

Student loan forgiveness does need to happen—now. But so does a commitment on the part of states to fund state colleges and universities. Forgiving student loans is a bandaid—a temporary fix of a much larger and more complex problem.
I have been banging on about the need for subsidy of periodic education for almost a decade.
Me, too only much longer. Only because I am much older than you.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,091
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Assuming there is exploitation of students by universities, it doesn't. But it would permit students to discharge their debts.
So we just let the problem go on?
Student loan forgiveness does eliminate one problem: a heavy drag on students with significant student debt. But here you touch on something that I don’t think has been touched on before: we cannot continue funding higher education by lending 18 year olds tens of thousands of dollars each year in order to pay for their schooling.

We really do need to recommit to public funding of education, at least at the levels it was supported in the 1960’s-1970’s. In the 1970’s states provided 65% of the funding fir state universities. Today, states provide less than half of that level of funding. At the same time, the necessity of holding a university degree in order to have financial stability has increased.

Student loan forgiveness does need to happen—now. But so does a commitment on the part of states to fund state colleges and universities. Forgiving student loans is a bandaid—a temporary fix of a much larger and more complex problem.
I have been banging on about the need for subsidy of periodic education for almost a decade.
Me, too only much longer. Only because I am much older than you.
My point is, I guess, that it's strange Loren, Trausti, Metaphor, et Al. rather than going "so we need to forgive loans AND make college freely accessible" instead goes "so let's not forgive the loans."
 

Gospel

Warning Level 9999
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,932
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Assuming there is exploitation of students by universities, it doesn't. But it would permit students to discharge their debts.
So we just let the problem go on?
Student loan forgiveness does eliminate one problem: a heavy drag on students with significant student debt. But here you touch on something that I don’t think has been touched on before: we cannot continue funding higher education by lending 18 year olds tens of thousands of dollars each year in order to pay for their schooling.

We really do need to recommit to public funding of education, at least at the levels it was supported in the 1960’s-1970’s. In the 1970’s states provided 65% of the funding fir state universities. Today, states provide less than half of that level of funding. At the same time, the necessity of holding a university degree in order to have financial stability has increased.

Student loan forgiveness does need to happen—now. But so does a commitment on the part of states to fund state colleges and universities. Forgiving student loans is a bandaid—a temporary fix of a much larger and more complex problem.
I have been banging on about the need for subsidy of periodic education for almost a decade.
Me, too only much longer. Only because I am much older than you.
My point is, I guess, that it's strange Loren, Trausti, Metaphor, et Al. rather than going "so we need to forgive loans AND make college freely accessible" instead goes "so let's not forgive the loans."

Yeah, that does seem a little odd. It's almost as if they don't know what happens when the student can't pay the federal loan. The Feds garnish their payments as well as garnish tax returns. now considering the cost of living is high that's homelessness for many of them resulting in the loan not getting paid back anyway.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,772
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Too many people just know the govt is a big household that spends income called tax or borrows money like they do. I mean it's just obvious like that the Sun goes around the Earth.
While it is a basically immortal household but the same economics are at work.

There are times it's worth borrowing--to obtain an appreciating/value producing asset or in dire circumstances. Other borrowing is no better for the government than it is for the household.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,772
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
18 year olds do not have enough experience with finance and debt to possibly understand an "unforgivable" loan with a price tag of "literally, more than a decent house would cost".
Should the universities and predatory lenders be on the hook for that and not the public? Why more bailouts?
How about the bizarre situation that in the USA bankruptcy does not eliminate student debt?
You still haven't addressed my point of strategic bankruptcy.
"Strategic" bankruptcy is a minor issue used to promote draconian anti-bankruptcy provisions of law.
So you're not willing to address it.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,772
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Assuming there is exploitation of students by universities, it doesn't. But it would permit students to discharge their debts.
So we just let the problem go on?
Student loan forgiveness does eliminate one problem: a heavy drag on students with significant student debt. But here you touch on something that I don’t think has been touched on before: we cannot continue funding higher education by lending 18 year olds tens of thousands of dollars each year in order to pay for their schooling.

We really do need to recommit to public funding of education, at least at the levels it was supported in the 1960’s-1970’s. In the 1970’s states provided 65% of the funding fir state universities. Today, states provide less than half of that level of funding. At the same time, the necessity of holding a university degree in order to have financial stability has increased.

Student loan forgiveness does need to happen—now. But so does a commitment on the part of states to fund state colleges and universities. Forgiving student loans is a bandaid—a temporary fix of a much larger and more complex problem.
I have been banging on about the need for subsidy of periodic education for almost a decade.
Me, too only much longer. Only because I am much older than you.
My point is, I guess, that it's strange Loren, Trausti, Metaphor, et Al. rather than going "so we need to forgive loans AND make college freely accessible" instead goes "so let's not forgive the loans."
Objection: While I do not favor making college freely accessible I do favor making it affordable. I dislike free, it invites abuse.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
26,814
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Too many people just know the govt is a big household that spends income called tax or borrows money like they do. I mean it's just obvious like that the Sun goes around the Earth.
While it is a basically immortal household but the same economics are at work.
An immortal household with access to unlimited cash that it can print at will.

So the economics at work are the same apart from being completely different in most important respects.
There are times it's worth borrowing--to obtain an appreciating/value producing asset or in dire circumstances. Other borrowing is no better for the government than it is for the household.
Governments don't have any financial constraints on their spending. They can spend as many dollars as they like, without earning, borrowing, begging or stealing them from anywhere or anyone.

Governments spend on whatever they want, and then later on, if they feel it is warranted, they recoup some of the money they spent, either as taxes, or as loans (typically bond sales).

They are in EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE position to a household, where one must first obtain money, by some means (earning, borrowing, begging, theft...) and only then are able to spend anything.

This is no minor distinction.

A government that spends without doing much of anything to obtain at least some money in return from the economy will run into all kinds of problems, for sure.

But a household that does the same is a physical impossibility. Because households cannot create money from nothing, and governments can.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,939
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
18 year olds do not have enough experience with finance and debt to possibly understand an "unforgivable" loan with a price tag of "literally, more than a decent house would cost".
Should the universities and predatory lenders be on the hook for that and not the public? Why more bailouts?
How about the bizarre situation that in the USA bankruptcy does not eliminate student debt?
You still haven't addressed my point of strategic bankruptcy.
"Strategic" bankruptcy is a minor issue used to promote draconian anti-bankruptcy provisions of law.
So you're not willing to address it.
I think it is such a minor issue that you are using as a distraction. Or to use a familiar phrase,you are letting the perfect get in the way of the good.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,091
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Assuming there is exploitation of students by universities, it doesn't. But it would permit students to discharge their debts.
So we just let the problem go on?
Student loan forgiveness does eliminate one problem: a heavy drag on students with significant student debt. But here you touch on something that I don’t think has been touched on before: we cannot continue funding higher education by lending 18 year olds tens of thousands of dollars each year in order to pay for their schooling.

We really do need to recommit to public funding of education, at least at the levels it was supported in the 1960’s-1970’s. In the 1970’s states provided 65% of the funding fir state universities. Today, states provide less than half of that level of funding. At the same time, the necessity of holding a university degree in order to have financial stability has increased.

Student loan forgiveness does need to happen—now. But so does a commitment on the part of states to fund state colleges and universities. Forgiving student loans is a bandaid—a temporary fix of a much larger and more complex problem.
I have been banging on about the need for subsidy of periodic education for almost a decade.
Me, too only much longer. Only because I am much older than you.
My point is, I guess, that it's strange Loren, Trausti, Metaphor, et Al. rather than going "so we need to forgive loans AND make college freely accessible" instead goes "so let's not forgive the loans."
Objection: While I do not favor making college freely accessible I do favor making it affordable. I dislike free, it invites abuse.
Abuse of what? Learning?

I like free education. It invites a more generally livable world.
 

Gospel

Warning Level 9999
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,932
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Doxxing myself.
 

Attachments

  • PXL_20220502_225250337.PORTRAIT.jpg
    PXL_20220502_225250337.PORTRAIT.jpg
    132.7 KB · Views: 5

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,677
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Assuming there is exploitation of students by universities, it doesn't. But it would permit students to discharge their debts.
So we just let the problem go on?
Student loan forgiveness does eliminate one problem: a heavy drag on students with significant student debt. But here you touch on something that I don’t think has been touched on before: we cannot continue funding higher education by lending 18 year olds tens of thousands of dollars each year in order to pay for their schooling.

We really do need to recommit to public funding of education, at least at the levels it was supported in the 1960’s-1970’s. In the 1970’s states provided 65% of the funding fir state universities. Today, states provide less than half of that level of funding. At the same time, the necessity of holding a university degree in order to have financial stability has increased.

Student loan forgiveness does need to happen—now. But so does a commitment on the part of states to fund state colleges and universities. Forgiving student loans is a bandaid—a temporary fix of a much larger and more complex problem.
I have been banging on about the need for subsidy of periodic education for almost a decade.
Me, too only much longer. Only because I am much older than you.
My point is, I guess, that it's strange Loren, Trausti, Metaphor, et Al. rather than going "so we need to forgive loans AND make college freely accessible" instead goes "so let's not forgive the loans."
Objection: While I do not favor making college freely accessible I do favor making it affordable. I dislike free, it invites abuse.
What? Are you afraid someone might learn too much??

Everything abs anything can be abused. I’m concerned about loss of academic freedom and rigor.

I personally think it should all be income based, with generous grants to help or outright provide housing, and cover fees and books. I know that will be abused as well—some families will surely find ways around any rule—declaring the student to be emancipated, etc. that stuff happened decades ago when I first went to college. Some families will be uncooperative about providing documentation of family income.

There will always be those who try and succeed at getting around rules. We cannot let striving for perfection get in the way of genuinely doing good.

There is a lot at stake. Since the Reagan administration, there has been a concerted effort to dumb down America. With the cost of undergrad education, fewer and fewer US students are going to grad school because of the cost and the lack of support enjoyed by earlier grades stations who had assistantships to help pay their way.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

People whose loans were forgiven aren't taxpayers anymore? Where do I sign up?
It's true that the debtors will have a net benefit, as anyone would from being gifted $10,000.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,772
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Objection: While I do not favor making college freely accessible I do favor making it affordable. I dislike free, it invites abuse.
Abuse of what? Learning?

I like free education. It invites a more generally livable world.
I saw too many students at the university who were there because their parents were paying and they saw it as easier than getting a job.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Metaphor had
I'm not the one proposing the forgiveness of student debts. The people proposing it have to make the arguments for it.
I understand - you have no rationale except to provide another boring example of abstract virture signalling.

Evidently you don't understand. I do have a rationale to oppose debt forgiveness for no good reason and I've already explicated it.
You have "explicated" your economically illiterate reason. I guess that counts as a rationale. But is certainly not a good reason. In fact, it barely qualifies as "reason".
Your characterisation of my moral arguments as economic arguments are mischaracterisations.
Your moral arguments have faulty economic reasoning as premises as well as ridiculous moral premises.

For example,
1) you have yet to explain why it is immoral for a lender to voluntarily forgive a loan,
I've explained a dozen times. If a lender forgives a loan with her own money, that's her business. If a lender forgives a loan for no good reason with her own money, that's still her business although she is modelling a bad example about people being obligated to keep promises.
But that is economically illiterate since it ignores the potential effect on the reduction of tax liabilities on the part of the lender.
But a lender forgiving loans using other people's money (the taxpayers at the time the loan was taken out by the student) is not the same.
That is driven by the your economic illiteracy.
I made no economic arguments.
Your arguments rely on economically illiterate premises.
2) you have made the faulty assumption that taxpayers are necessarily harmed by the forgiving of a gov't loan,
are just 2 of your handwaved assertions.
Taxpayers are harmed because they were promised (by the government at the time the loans were taken out) that this was not a gift to students but a loan. Taxpayers paid for the debt and now the person who controls the debt has decided it's okay to not be repaid.
That is a combination of economic and political illiteracy. The person controlling the debt made this promise and was elected by the taxpayers. Which suggests they have no problems with the promise.
It doesn't make that suggestion at all. "No problems"? You've had "no problems" with every single campaign promise of every president you've ever voted for, and your having voted for them is blanket endorsement of all their campaign promises? Really?


Furthermore, if the forgiveness of the loans sufficiently spurs economic activity more than the activity that would have occurred with repayment, then taxpayers are better off.
Any giveaway of money could spur economic activity. A random lottery giving $10k to select adults would be more ethical, frankly, then forgiving the debts of debtors for no good reason.

That is not an economic argument. You can blather all you like about 'economic illiteracy' but you lack basic literacy.
Whatever you wish to call your position, it is based on naive and/or fundamentally bonehead economics.
It isn't based on economics at all, excepting that bad debts don't benefit the person who loaned the money.

Your response simply confirms my accurate description of your position.
I don't doubt that is exactly as you perceive it.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,677
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Objection: While I do not favor making college freely accessible I do favor making it affordable. I dislike free, it invites abuse.
Abuse of what? Learning?

I like free education. It invites a more generally livable world.
I saw too many students at the university who were there because their parents were paying and they saw it as easier than getting a job.
So? You’re upset that some students had parents who were well enough off to provide tuition for their kids to give them the best start in life— You think that’s a bad thing?

Do you also think vaccinations are ineffective if they don’t hurt? Medicine doesn’t work unless it tastes bad?

You are correct that many 18 year olds are not as motivated as they could be to get the most out of (fill in the blank, including youth!). They are 18. Still kids. Not very mature. It’s a biology thing.

You want to punish everyone because…they didn’t suffer as much as you did?

That’s pretty messed up.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,939
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Of course it does. Do you have even the slightest evidence that Biden voters did not approve of that promise? If not, on what empirical basis do you make your claim that those taxpayers are harmed?
"No problems"? You've had "no problems" with every single campaign promise of every president you've ever voted for, and your having voted for them is blanket endorsement of all their campaign promises? Really?
For some reason, you feel that straw man is relevant.
Furthermore, if the forgiveness of the loans sufficiently spurs economic activity more than the activity that would have occurred with repayment, then taxpayers are better off.
Any giveaway of money could spur economic activity.
I can understand why the economically illiterate would think that response is relevant.
A random lottery giving $10k to select adults would be more ethical, frankly, then forgiving the debts of debtors for no good reason.
I can understand why the economically illiterate and morally challenged would think that response is relevant.
That is not an economic argument. You can blather all you like about 'economic illiteracy' but you lack basic literacy.
Whatever you wish to call your position, it is based on naive and/or fundamentally bonehead economics.
It isn't based on economics at all, excepting that bad debts don't benefit the person who loaned the money.
Of course it is. I explicated it a number of times. Apparently, not only do you lack economic literacy but basic literacy as well.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,939
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Objection: While I do not favor making college freely accessible I do favor making it affordable. I dislike free, it invites abuse.
Abuse of what? Learning?

I like free education. It invites a more generally livable world.
I saw too many students at the university who were there because their parents were paying and they saw it as easier than getting a job.
In what world is the choice of going to school over working because school is viewed as easier is a valid reason to think that makes freely accessible education bad?
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Of course it does. Do you have even the slightest evidence that Biden voters did not approve of that promise?
I do know that I personally have never approved of every single policy from a leader, or even known all their policies, and so to imply I approve all of them is ludicrous. In fact, for single issue voters, they might approve only one policy.

If not, on what empirical basis do you make your claim that those taxpayers are harmed?
Some taxpayers did not vote for Biden.

"No problems"? You've had "no problems" with every single campaign promise of every president you've ever voted for, and your having voted for them is blanket endorsement of all their campaign promises? Really?
For some reason, you feel that straw man is relevant.
You don't know what a straw man is. The above is not a caricature of your position. It's a question.

Furthermore, if the forgiveness of the loans sufficiently spurs economic activity more than the activity that would have occurred with repayment, then taxpayers are better off.
Any giveaway of money could spur economic activity.
I can understand why the economically illiterate would think that response is relevant.
No, you can't understand. You are claiming that if it 'spurs economic activity' tax payers won't necessarily be (net) harmed. But many giveaways of money could do that. In fact, a targeted giveaway would do it better for no more cost.

A random lottery giving $10k to select adults would be more ethical, frankly, then forgiving the debts of debtors for no good reason.
I can understand why the economically illiterate and morally challenged would think that response is relevant.
Don't be so hard on yourself.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,091
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Objection: While I do not favor making college freely accessible I do favor making it affordable. I dislike free, it invites abuse.
Abuse of what? Learning?

I like free education. It invites a more generally livable world.
I saw too many students at the university who were there because their parents were paying and they saw it as easier than getting a job.
Of course it's easier than getting a job. One of the principle benefits in fact of expanded education is delayed entry into the workforce and reduced supply of workers.

If, in addition to unproductive unemployment, people were given education, then they might be able to find employment after.

If, after a period of perhaps unsuccessfully or minimally successful employment, people seek education, they might be able to find more successful employment in a different field or to vacate a role better filled by other folks.

Of course, it IS easier than getting a job. It's one of the carrots to get people in through the door, in fact, which is part of the snare that traps, and hopefully kills the shit out of a great deal of lurking idiocy and ignorance.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,852
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

People whose loans were forgiven aren't taxpayers anymore? Where do I sign up?
They're harmed, they're just benefited more than they are harmed.
How were you harmed when Trump gave the rich a tax cut that cost the approximate equivalent of the cost of student loan forgiveness?
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,852
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,091
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

People whose loans were forgiven aren't taxpayers anymore? Where do I sign up?
It's true that the debtors will have a net benefit, as anyone would from being gifted $10,000.
Just to note that in the US that 10 grand would be considered taxable income.
Not to mention it's not money being gifted. They never saw that money. They were gifted education, and by the federal government's securities, no less.

It makes sense to gift our populace with education, especially on the security of the public trust.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,939
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I do know that I personally have never approved of every single policy from a leader, or even known all their policies, and so to imply I approve all of them is ludicrous. In fact, for single issue voters, they might approve only one policy.
Cool story bro. If you think it is irrelevant, it indicates your disdain for democratic principles.
If not, on what empirical basis do you make your claim that those taxpayers are harmed?
Some taxpayers did not vote for Biden.
True, but life in a democratic society means some people do not always get their way.
But that does not mean that taxpayers as a group are worse off. If your argument is that there will some taxpayers who are harmed, well, that is an abstract standard that is impossible to meet in a democracy.
"No problems"? You've had "no problems" with every single campaign promise of every president you've ever voted for, and your having voted for them is blanket endorsement of all their campaign promises? Really?
For some reason, you feel that straw man is relevant.
You don't know what a straw man is. The above is not a caricature of your position. It's a question.
I was being kind. Either your question is based on a straw man premise or plain stupidity. I choose the former, but I guess you prefer the latter explanation.
Furthermore, if the forgiveness of the loans sufficiently spurs economic activity more than the activity that would have occurred with repayment, then taxpayers are better off.
Any giveaway of money could spur economic activity.
I can understand why the economically illiterate would think that response is relevant.
No, you can't understand. You are claiming that if it 'spurs economic activity' tax payers won't necessarily be (net) harmed. But many giveaways of money could do that. In fact, a targeted giveaway would do it better for no more cost.
Your response is evidence of incompetent reasoning. My point is that that whether or not the forgiveness harms taxpayers is an empirical question. Your response is that there might be a better policy. Whether there would be a better policy is not relevant to the issue that this particular policy may not harm taxpayers.

 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
26,814
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist

BH

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
861
Location
United States-Texas
Basic Beliefs
Muslim
My degree is in History and I also took some grad courses in History and in Education. I taught a littlexwhile and did not like it and got out of it. In my opinion my History did and does help me with my job now, running a mid sized retail store. However, I understand why people think it wouldnt help much. its assumed by non majors all you did was learn dates and rote facts like in high school, totally different from classes at university level. you get into the background how and why things happened.You have to touch somewhat on basic economics, psychology ect. I ran a front end for a grocery store for a while after getting my bachelors degree. The company had us take some management training classes that included a two day math course in basic business math. There was one man, one woman, and myself that had degrees in different fields. we did the entire 50 page booklet in an hour or two. Everyone else it took the full two days, and then had to go back a third day. it was basic stuff

I think all degrees will help you to a point to a large extent at any job, however , they wont help as much in a specialized field needing a specialized degree. Also, people who never studied your subject or have no degree may make assumptions that you couldnt do something because your degree is in x and not y or you couldnt be any better than someone without the degree

I've learned to just be quiet in real life about stuff like this. All it does is end up offending someone or making someone bitter.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Your response is evidence of incompetent reasoning. My point is that that whether or not the forgiveness harms taxpayers is an empirical question.
It's an empirical question only for the aspects of harm that are measurable empirically.

Your response is that there might be a better policy. Whether there would be a better policy is not relevant to the issue that this particular policy may not harm taxpayers.
It depends on your definition of 'harm'. I am harmed by a less efficient policy compared to a more efficient policy.

 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

People whose loans were forgiven aren't taxpayers anymore? Where do I sign up?
They're harmed, they're just benefited more than they are harmed.
By this standard, you are harmed by breathing oxygen.
Non. Net positive effects (if that's what happens) does not mean you did not have negative effects.

Protectionist tariffs harm everybody overall, but a smaller, specialised group of people have a net benefit from them. But even that smaller, specialised group is harmed by the tariffs that benefit different, specialised groups.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,677
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

People whose loans were forgiven aren't taxpayers anymore? Where do I sign up?
They're harmed, they're just benefited more than they are harmed.
By this standard, you are harmed by breathing oxygen.
Non. Net positive effects (if that's what happens) does not mean you did not have negative effects.

Protectionist tariffs harm everybody overall, but a smaller, specialised group of people have a net benefit from them. But even that smaller, specialised group is harmed by the tariffs that benefit different, specialised groups.
Needing to get up early to go to my job to earn money to pay my bills involved a couple of negatives. The positive (pay, benefits) outweighed the negative (getting up early, commuting, the job itself). Are you saying it was wrong for me to go to work to earn money to pay my bills? Should I have stayed home instead, collecting welfare?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,939
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Your response is evidence of incompetent reasoning. My point is that that whether or not the forgiveness harms taxpayers is an empirical question.
It's an empirical question only for the aspects of harm that are measurable empirically.
And for benefits as well.
Your response is that there might be a better policy. Whether there would be a better policy is not relevant to the issue that this particular policy may not harm taxpayers.
It depends on your definition of 'harm'. I am harmed by a less efficient policy compared to a more efficient policy.
Sure Jan, but I am not going to play your Cheshire cat pedantry games.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem


You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

People whose loans were forgiven aren't taxpayers anymore? Where do I sign up?
They're harmed, they're just benefited more than they are harmed.
By this standard, you are harmed by breathing oxygen.
Non. Net positive effects (if that's what happens) does not mean you did not have negative effects.

Protectionist tariffs harm everybody overall, but a smaller, specialised group of people have a net benefit from them. But even that smaller, specialised group is harmed by the tariffs that benefit different, specialised groups.
Needing to get up early to go to my job to earn money to pay my bills involved a couple of negatives. The positive (pay, benefits) outweighed the negative (getting up early, commuting, the job itself). Are you saying it was wrong for me to go to work to earn money to pay my bills? Should I have stayed home instead, collecting welfare?
No, I'm saying just because you personally had a net benefit doesn't everyone had a net benefit and it doesn't mean you didn't give up something (get harmed) to get it.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,091
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Your response is evidence of incompetent reasoning. My point is that that whether or not the forgiveness harms taxpayers is an empirical question.
It's an empirical question only for the aspects of harm that are measurable empirically.
And for benefits as well.
Your response is that there might be a better policy. Whether there would be a better policy is not relevant to the issue that this particular policy may not harm taxpayers.
It depends on your definition of 'harm'. I am harmed by a less efficient policy compared to a more efficient policy.
Sure Jan, but I am not going to play your Cheshire cat pedantry games.
Not to mention the fact that Metaphor is ONLY helped by the US offering student loan forgiveness.

The loan organizations are out no money, only US taxpayers.

Metaphor benefits from more people in the world being educated and free.

Metaphor does not pay US taxes so foots none of the bill.

The only possible 'harm' Metaphor might receive from this is the 'harm' Metaphor receives when those who write for his propaganda spigot tells him 'he has been harmed.'
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,939
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule


You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

People whose loans were forgiven aren't taxpayers anymore? Where do I sign up?
They're harmed, they're just benefited more than they are harmed.
By this standard, you are harmed by breathing oxygen.
Non. Net positive effects (if that's what happens) does not mean you did not have negative effects.

Protectionist tariffs harm everybody overall, but a smaller, specialised group of people have a net benefit from them. But even that smaller, specialised group is harmed by the tariffs that benefit different, specialised groups.
Needing to get up early to go to my job to earn money to pay my bills involved a couple of negatives. The positive (pay, benefits) outweighed the negative (getting up early, commuting, the job itself). Are you saying it was wrong for me to go to work to earn money to pay my bills? Should I have stayed home instead, collecting welfare?
No, I'm saying just because you personally had a net benefit doesn't everyone had a net benefit and it doesn't mean you didn't give up something (get harmed) to get it.
Your argument is incredibly pathetic. The term "net benefit" means to anyone remotely familiar with economics, that the benefits exceed the costs (or "harm"). Reminding readers someone who may enjoy a net benefit is still harmed is pointing out the needlessly obvious.
Furthermore, the entire discussion in this thread is about taxpayers as a group. No one with an ounce of sense or intellectual integrity would claim that the phrase "taxpayers are harmed" or "taxpayers benefit" means every single taxpayer. That would be fucking delusional.

Whether or not taxpayers as a group would be harmed from Biden's policy for student loan forgiveness is ultimately an empirical question. People may differ about their assessments on the relative benefits and costs from such a policy, but it is by no means clear that such a policy would necessarily generate a net benefit to taxpayers as a whole or a net cost to taxpayers as a whole.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,091
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

People whose loans were forgiven aren't taxpayers anymore? Where do I sign up?
They're harmed, they're just benefited more than they are harmed.
By this standard, you are harmed by breathing oxygen.
Non. Net positive effects (if that's what happens) does not mean you did not have negative effects.

Protectionist tariffs harm everybody overall, but a smaller, specialised group of people have a net benefit from them. But even that smaller, specialised group is harmed by the tariffs that benefit different, specialised groups.
Needing to get up early to go to my job to earn money to pay my bills involved a couple of negatives. The positive (pay, benefits) outweighed the negative (getting up early, commuting, the job itself). Are you saying it was wrong for me to go to work to earn money to pay my bills? Should I have stayed home instead, collecting welfare?
No, I'm saying just because you personally had a net benefit doesn't everyone had a net benefit and it doesn't mean you didn't give up something (get harmed) to get it.
Your argument is incredibly pathetic. The term "net benefit" means to anyone remotely familiar with economics, that the benefits exceed the costs (or "harm"). Reminding readers someone who may enjoy a net benefit is still harmed is pointing out the needlessly obvious.
Furthermore, the entire discussion in this thread is about taxpayers as a group. No one with an ounce of sense or intellectual integrity would claim that the phrase "taxpayers are harmed" or "taxpayers benefit" means every single taxpayer. That would be fucking delusional.

Whether or not taxpayers as a group would be harmed from Biden's policy for student loan forgiveness is ultimately an empirical question. People may differ about their assessments on the relative benefits and costs from such a policy, but it is by no means clear that such a policy would necessarily generate a net benefit to taxpayers as a whole or a net cost to taxpayers as a whole.
I will object to this, on account of the fact that an educated population benefits every single person.

Usually the benefit is orders of magnitude more than the cost.

And Metaphor cannot speak one whit to the cost of this loan forgiveness because he is not the one paying the cost. His opinion on it does not matter at all.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,677
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all


You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

People whose loans were forgiven aren't taxpayers anymore? Where do I sign up?
They're harmed, they're just benefited more than they are harmed.
By this standard, you are harmed by breathing oxygen.
Non. Net positive effects (if that's what happens) does not mean you did not have negative effects.

Protectionist tariffs harm everybody overall, but a smaller, specialised group of people have a net benefit from them. But even that smaller, specialised group is harmed by the tariffs that benefit different, specialised groups.
Needing to get up early to go to my job to earn money to pay my bills involved a couple of negatives. The positive (pay, benefits) outweighed the negative (getting up early, commuting, the job itself). Are you saying it was wrong for me to go to work to earn money to pay my bills? Should I have stayed home instead, collecting welfare?
No, I'm saying just because you personally had a net benefit doesn't everyone had a net benefit and it doesn't mean you didn't give up something (get harmed) to get it.
My god—you need to stop harming yourself by posting in this forum immediately! Think of all the time and energy you have given up in order to get whatever gain you feel you derive from your participation here! Don’t forget to quit your job! Think of all the hours and hours you give up for a few measly dollars! Please stop harming yourself!!!

Of course that paragraph w as entirely facetious. No one wants you to quit posting or to quit your job. But everything we do is a trade off. We give up time in order to go to and perform our jobs, shop for food and other necessities, prepare meals, clean up after, etc. We benefit from all of those things, as well. I’m about to go outside and do some yard work which I will pay for with sore muscles and stiff joints and sun exposure. I’m ‘harming’ myself in your parlance. I’m also benefitting from the exercise, fresh air, flowers and vegetables I will enjoy and eventually when I sell my home, the value of the property will increase because of my labors. I see it as a net benefit because, despite some expected stiffness and soreness ( harms) and loss of time I could spend conversing with you here ( another harm), I find it worthwhile and enjoyable.

Everything is a trade off. Even breathing.

Society benefits from having a well educated population. Society should bear those costs.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Your response is evidence of incompetent reasoning. My point is that that whether or not the forgiveness harms taxpayers is an empirical question.
It's an empirical question only for the aspects of harm that are measurable empirically.
And for benefits as well.
Your response is that there might be a better policy. Whether there would be a better policy is not relevant to the issue that this particular policy may not harm taxpayers.
It depends on your definition of 'harm'. I am harmed by a less efficient policy compared to a more efficient policy.
Sure Jan, but I am not going to play your Cheshire cat pedantry games.
Not to mention the fact that Metaphor is ONLY helped by the US offering student loan forgiveness.
False. I am not helped by bad decisions made by governments, even when they are in other countries.

The loan organizations are out no money, only US taxpayers.

Metaphor benefits from more people in the world being educated and free.
Irrelevant. They were already educated. Not forgiving part of their loan does not suddenly disappear their education.

Metaphor does not pay US taxes so foots none of the bill.
A pay a little bit, from investment income.

The only possible 'harm' Metaphor might receive from this is the 'harm' Metaphor receives when those who write for his propaganda spigot tells him 'he has been harmed.'
Why should I judge "harm" by only the harm that accrues to me personally?
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem


You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

People whose loans were forgiven aren't taxpayers anymore? Where do I sign up?
They're harmed, they're just benefited more than they are harmed.
By this standard, you are harmed by breathing oxygen.
Non. Net positive effects (if that's what happens) does not mean you did not have negative effects.

Protectionist tariffs harm everybody overall, but a smaller, specialised group of people have a net benefit from them. But even that smaller, specialised group is harmed by the tariffs that benefit different, specialised groups.
Needing to get up early to go to my job to earn money to pay my bills involved a couple of negatives. The positive (pay, benefits) outweighed the negative (getting up early, commuting, the job itself). Are you saying it was wrong for me to go to work to earn money to pay my bills? Should I have stayed home instead, collecting welfare?
No, I'm saying just because you personally had a net benefit doesn't everyone had a net benefit and it doesn't mean you didn't give up something (get harmed) to get it.
My god—you need to stop harming yourself by posting in this forum immediately! Think of all the time and energy you have given up in order to get whatever gain you feel you derive from your participation here! Don’t forget to quit your job! Think of all the hours and hours you give up for a few measly dollars! Please stop harming yourself!!!

Of course that paragraph w as entirely facetious. No one wants you to quit posting or to quit your job. But everything we do is a trade off. We give up time in order to go to and perform our jobs, shop for food and other necessities, prepare meals, clean up after, etc. We benefit from all of those things, as well. I’m about to go outside and do some yard work which I will pay for with sore muscles and stiff joints and sun exposure. I’m ‘harming’ myself in your parlance. I’m also benefitting from the exercise, fresh air, flowers and vegetables I will enjoy and eventually when I sell my home, the value of the property will increase because of my labors. I see it as a net benefit because, despite some expected stiffness and soreness ( harms) and loss of time I could spend conversing with you here ( another harm), I find it worthwhile and enjoyable.

Everything is a trade off. Even breathing.

Society benefits from having a well educated population. Society should bear those costs.
I understand there are tradeoffs to everything. You are discounting to zero the things given up on the other side of the equation when debts owed to the US are needlessly forgiven.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

People whose loans were forgiven aren't taxpayers anymore? Where do I sign up?
They're harmed, they're just benefited more than they are harmed.
By this standard, you are harmed by breathing oxygen.
Non. Net positive effects (if that's what happens) does not mean you did not have negative effects.

Protectionist tariffs harm everybody overall, but a smaller, specialised group of people have a net benefit from them. But even that smaller, specialised group is harmed by the tariffs that benefit different, specialised groups.
Needing to get up early to go to my job to earn money to pay my bills involved a couple of negatives. The positive (pay, benefits) outweighed the negative (getting up early, commuting, the job itself). Are you saying it was wrong for me to go to work to earn money to pay my bills? Should I have stayed home instead, collecting welfare?
No, I'm saying just because you personally had a net benefit doesn't everyone had a net benefit and it doesn't mean you didn't give up something (get harmed) to get it.
Your argument is incredibly pathetic. The term "net benefit" means to anyone remotely familiar with economics, that the benefits exceed the costs (or "harm"). Reminding readers someone who may enjoy a net benefit is still harmed is pointing out the needlessly obvious.
Furthermore, the entire discussion in this thread is about taxpayers as a group. No one with an ounce of sense or intellectual integrity would claim that the phrase "taxpayers are harmed" or "taxpayers benefit" means every single taxpayer. That would be fucking delusional.

Whether or not taxpayers as a group would be harmed from Biden's policy for student loan forgiveness is ultimately an empirical question. People may differ about their assessments on the relative benefits and costs from such a policy, but it is by no means clear that such a policy would necessarily generate a net benefit to taxpayers as a whole or a net cost to taxpayers as a whole.
I will object to this, on account of the fact that an educated population benefits every single person.

Usually the benefit is orders of magnitude more than the cost.

And Metaphor cannot speak one whit to the cost of this loan forgiveness because he is not the one paying the cost. His opinion on it does not matter at all.
What a strange moral system you have.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem


You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

People whose loans were forgiven aren't taxpayers anymore? Where do I sign up?
They're harmed, they're just benefited more than they are harmed.
By this standard, you are harmed by breathing oxygen.
Non. Net positive effects (if that's what happens) does not mean you did not have negative effects.

Protectionist tariffs harm everybody overall, but a smaller, specialised group of people have a net benefit from them. But even that smaller, specialised group is harmed by the tariffs that benefit different, specialised groups.
Needing to get up early to go to my job to earn money to pay my bills involved a couple of negatives. The positive (pay, benefits) outweighed the negative (getting up early, commuting, the job itself). Are you saying it was wrong for me to go to work to earn money to pay my bills? Should I have stayed home instead, collecting welfare?
No, I'm saying just because you personally had a net benefit doesn't everyone had a net benefit and it doesn't mean you didn't give up something (get harmed) to get it.
Your argument is incredibly pathetic. The term "net benefit" means to anyone remotely familiar with economics, that the benefits exceed the costs (or "harm"). Reminding readers someone who may enjoy a net benefit is still harmed is pointing out the needlessly obvious.
It's only "needlessly obvious" if the costs are actually acknowledged by the other side.

Furthermore, the entire discussion in this thread is about taxpayers as a group. No one with an ounce of sense or intellectual integrity would claim that the phrase "taxpayers are harmed" or "taxpayers benefit" means every single taxpayer. That would be fucking delusional.
I don't agree that taxpayers as a group are getting a net benefit.

Whether or not taxpayers as a group would be harmed from Biden's policy for student loan forgiveness is ultimately an empirical question.
It's an empirical question in terms of income or wealth - taxpayers qua taxpayers. But there are non-economic aspects too.

People may differ about their assessments on the relative benefits and costs from such a policy, but it is by no means clear that such a policy would necessarily generate a net benefit to taxpayers as a whole or a net cost to taxpayers as a whole.
It may or may not generate a net economic benefit to taxpayers, especially in the current economic climate of the US. The case has not been made. But I sincerely doubt it would, and even if it would, a targeted gift of $10,000 would make the economic benefits to taxpayers greater.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,091
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So, some people don't understand the math of "people become more educated" + "they're not paying for it" = "they are helped and not harmed".

Then again, I don't expect much more from someone who can't immediately understand "no cop, no stop".
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,677
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all


You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

People whose loans were forgiven aren't taxpayers anymore? Where do I sign up?
They're harmed, they're just benefited more than they are harmed.
By this standard, you are harmed by breathing oxygen.
Non. Net positive effects (if that's what happens) does not mean you did not have negative effects.

Protectionist tariffs harm everybody overall, but a smaller, specialised group of people have a net benefit from them. But even that smaller, specialised group is harmed by the tariffs that benefit different, specialised groups.
Needing to get up early to go to my job to earn money to pay my bills involved a couple of negatives. The positive (pay, benefits) outweighed the negative (getting up early, commuting, the job itself). Are you saying it was wrong for me to go to work to earn money to pay my bills? Should I have stayed home instead, collecting welfare?
No, I'm saying just because you personally had a net benefit doesn't everyone had a net benefit and it doesn't mean you didn't give up something (get harmed) to get it.
My god—you need to stop harming yourself by posting in this forum immediately! Think of all the time and energy you have given up in order to get whatever gain you feel you derive from your participation here! Don’t forget to quit your job! Think of all the hours and hours you give up for a few measly dollars! Please stop harming yourself!!!

Of course that paragraph w as entirely facetious. No one wants you to quit posting or to quit your job. But everything we do is a trade off. We give up time in order to go to and perform our jobs, shop for food and other necessities, prepare meals, clean up after, etc. We benefit from all of those things, as well. I’m about to go outside and do some yard work which I will pay for with sore muscles and stiff joints and sun exposure. I’m ‘harming’ myself in your parlance. I’m also benefitting from the exercise, fresh air, flowers and vegetables I will enjoy and eventually when I sell my home, the value of the property will increase because of my labors. I see it as a net benefit because, despite some expected stiffness and soreness ( harms) and loss of time I could spend conversing with you here ( another harm), I find it worthwhile and enjoyable.

Everything is a trade off. Even breathing.

Society benefits from having a well educated population. Society should bear those costs.
I understand there are tradeoffs to everything. You are discounting to zero the things given up on the other side of the equation when debts owed to the US are needlessly forgiven.
Needlessly?

What is needless is for the government to loan its citizens money at any interest rate >0% in order to procure an education at a public university. The citizens are already paying for the university.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,939
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule


You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

People whose loans were forgiven aren't taxpayers anymore? Where do I sign up?
They're harmed, they're just benefited more than they are harmed.
By this standard, you are harmed by breathing oxygen.
Non. Net positive effects (if that's what happens) does not mean you did not have negative effects.

Protectionist tariffs harm everybody overall, but a smaller, specialised group of people have a net benefit from them. But even that smaller, specialised group is harmed by the tariffs that benefit different, specialised groups.
Needing to get up early to go to my job to earn money to pay my bills involved a couple of negatives. The positive (pay, benefits) outweighed the negative (getting up early, commuting, the job itself). Are you saying it was wrong for me to go to work to earn money to pay my bills? Should I have stayed home instead, collecting welfare?
No, I'm saying just because you personally had a net benefit doesn't everyone had a net benefit and it doesn't mean you didn't give up something (get harmed) to get it.
Your argument is incredibly pathetic. The term "net benefit" means to anyone remotely familiar with economics, that the benefits exceed the costs (or "harm"). Reminding readers someone who may enjoy a net benefit is still harmed is pointing out the needlessly obvious.
It's only "needlessly obvious" if the costs are actually acknowledged by the other side.
I don't see anyone dismissing the issue of actual costs. I do see posters dismissing the issue of potential benefits or the potential net benefits to be positive.
Furthermore, the entire discussion in this thread is about taxpayers as a group. No one with an ounce of sense or intellectual integrity would claim that the phrase "taxpayers are harmed" or "taxpayers benefit" means every single taxpayer. That would be fucking delusional.
I don't agree that taxpayers as a group are getting a net benefit.
Whether they do or not is an empirical question.
Whether or not taxpayers as a group would be harmed from Biden's policy for student loan forgiveness is ultimately an empirical question.
It's an empirical question in terms of income or wealth - taxpayers qua taxpayers. But there are non-economic aspects too.
And those non-economic aspects have benefits and costs as well.
People may differ about their assessments on the relative benefits and costs from such a policy, but it is by no means clear that such a policy would necessarily generate a net benefit to taxpayers as a whole or a net cost to taxpayers as a whole.
It may or may not generate a net economic benefit to taxpayers, especially in the current economic climate of the US. The case has not been made.
Actually it has been made.
But I sincerely doubt it would, and even if it would, a targeted gift of $10,000 would make the economic benefits to taxpayers greater.
It is possible. It is also possible that the net benefits to taxpayers would be lower. It is also an empirical question.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem


You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

People whose loans were forgiven aren't taxpayers anymore? Where do I sign up?
They're harmed, they're just benefited more than they are harmed.
By this standard, you are harmed by breathing oxygen.
Non. Net positive effects (if that's what happens) does not mean you did not have negative effects.

Protectionist tariffs harm everybody overall, but a smaller, specialised group of people have a net benefit from them. But even that smaller, specialised group is harmed by the tariffs that benefit different, specialised groups.
Needing to get up early to go to my job to earn money to pay my bills involved a couple of negatives. The positive (pay, benefits) outweighed the negative (getting up early, commuting, the job itself). Are you saying it was wrong for me to go to work to earn money to pay my bills? Should I have stayed home instead, collecting welfare?
No, I'm saying just because you personally had a net benefit doesn't everyone had a net benefit and it doesn't mean you didn't give up something (get harmed) to get it.
My god—you need to stop harming yourself by posting in this forum immediately! Think of all the time and energy you have given up in order to get whatever gain you feel you derive from your participation here! Don’t forget to quit your job! Think of all the hours and hours you give up for a few measly dollars! Please stop harming yourself!!!

Of course that paragraph w as entirely facetious. No one wants you to quit posting or to quit your job. But everything we do is a trade off. We give up time in order to go to and perform our jobs, shop for food and other necessities, prepare meals, clean up after, etc. We benefit from all of those things, as well. I’m about to go outside and do some yard work which I will pay for with sore muscles and stiff joints and sun exposure. I’m ‘harming’ myself in your parlance. I’m also benefitting from the exercise, fresh air, flowers and vegetables I will enjoy and eventually when I sell my home, the value of the property will increase because of my labors. I see it as a net benefit because, despite some expected stiffness and soreness ( harms) and loss of time I could spend conversing with you here ( another harm), I find it worthwhile and enjoyable.

Everything is a trade off. Even breathing.

Society benefits from having a well educated population. Society should bear those costs.
I understand there are tradeoffs to everything. You are discounting to zero the things given up on the other side of the equation when debts owed to the US are needlessly forgiven.
Needlessly?
Yes.

What is needless is for the government to loan its citizens money at any interest rate >0% in order to procure an education at a public university.
You object to loaning the money at all. You want it to be free.

The citizens are already paying for the university.
Citizens are partly paying for public universities. They're not completely paying, otherwise there wouldn't be any loans at all.
 

Canard DuJour

Veteran Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
1,166
Location
UK
Basic Beliefs
dunno
Too many people just know the govt is a big household that spends income called tax or borrows money like they do. I mean it's just obvious like that the Sun goes around the Earth.
While it is a basically immortal household but the same economics are at work.
An immortal household with access to unlimited cash that it can print at will.

So the economics at work are the same apart from being completely different in most important respects.
There are times it's worth borrowing--to obtain an appreciating/value producing asset or in dire circumstances. Other borrowing is no better for the government than it is for the household.
Governments don't have any financial constraints on their spending. They can spend as many dollars as they like, without earning, borrowing, begging or stealing them from anywhere or anyone.

Governments spend on whatever they want, and then later on, if they feel it is warranted, they recoup some of the money they spent, either as taxes, or as loans (typically bond sales).

They are in EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE position to a household, where one must first obtain money, by some means (earning, borrowing, begging, theft...) and only then are able to spend anything.

This is no minor distinction.

A government that spends without doing much of anything to obtain at least some money in return from the economy will run into all kinds of problems, for sure.

But a household that does the same is a physical impossibility. Because households cannot create money from nothing, and governments can.


Exactly.


And that opposite position is evident in sectoral balance accounting :


Sectoral_Financial_Balances_in_U.S._Economy.png



UK-Sectoral-Balances-by-Neil-Wilson-1.png



Govt and private sector balances are always mirror images (± external balance). Not by coincidence or theory, but necessarily. When Vickrey, Galbraith et al say govt deficits put money in private pockets, they mean in a direct accounting sense.

If anything should be "obvious", it's that govt taxing less than it spends does not necessarily hurt tax payers. But people confuse that with a household budget deficit whereby that household subsequently has less to spend. A fallacy of composition. The private sector (households and firms) are, by that analogy, in the position of the recipients of a given household's deficit spending.

Nor is that contingent on a positive multiplier effect - though there's often that as well. It'd only hurt tax payers if there were a consistent negative multiplier, and there's no evidence of that.

(and anyone who thinks that's the same as the idea that tax cuts for the rich mean more tax revenues hasn't understood it)
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,677
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all


You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

People whose loans were forgiven aren't taxpayers anymore? Where do I sign up?
They're harmed, they're just benefited more than they are harmed.
By this standard, you are harmed by breathing oxygen.
Non. Net positive effects (if that's what happens) does not mean you did not have negative effects.

Protectionist tariffs harm everybody overall, but a smaller, specialised group of people have a net benefit from them. But even that smaller, specialised group is harmed by the tariffs that benefit different, specialised groups.
Needing to get up early to go to my job to earn money to pay my bills involved a couple of negatives. The positive (pay, benefits) outweighed the negative (getting up early, commuting, the job itself). Are you saying it was wrong for me to go to work to earn money to pay my bills? Should I have stayed home instead, collecting welfare?
No, I'm saying just because you personally had a net benefit doesn't everyone had a net benefit and it doesn't mean you didn't give up something (get harmed) to get it.
My god—you need to stop harming yourself by posting in this forum immediately! Think of all the time and energy you have given up in order to get whatever gain you feel you derive from your participation here! Don’t forget to quit your job! Think of all the hours and hours you give up for a few measly dollars! Please stop harming yourself!!!

Of course that paragraph w as entirely facetious. No one wants you to quit posting or to quit your job. But everything we do is a trade off. We give up time in order to go to and perform our jobs, shop for food and other necessities, prepare meals, clean up after, etc. We benefit from all of those things, as well. I’m about to go outside and do some yard work which I will pay for with sore muscles and stiff joints and sun exposure. I’m ‘harming’ myself in your parlance. I’m also benefitting from the exercise, fresh air, flowers and vegetables I will enjoy and eventually when I sell my home, the value of the property will increase because of my labors. I see it as a net benefit because, despite some expected stiffness and soreness ( harms) and loss of time I could spend conversing with you here ( another harm), I find it worthwhile and enjoyable.

Everything is a trade off. Even breathing.

Society benefits from having a well educated population. Society should bear those costs.
I understand there are tradeoffs to everything. You are discounting to zero the things given up on the other side of the equation when debts owed to the US are needlessly forgiven.
Needlessly?
Yes.

What is needless is for the government to loan its citizens money at any interest rate >0% in order to procure an education at a public university.
You object to loaning the money at all. You want it to be free.

The citizens are already paying for the university.
Citizens are partly paying for public universities. They're not completely paying, otherwise there wouldn't be any loans at all.
You are very fond of telling other people what they think and want. You actually are quite wrong in..well, every case I can bring to mind.

There is nothing wrong with lending money interest free. I borrowed money to purchase an automobile and get this: the 6 year loan is interest free. Actually, that's what I did for the previous car as well.

Of course I do not want universities to be free of cost. Tax payers should be footing a much higher portion of the cost. I am arguing that students are expected to take on a much heavier burden of debt in order to obtain an education that will allow them to pursue the careers they want compared with the level of debt one would incur from student loans taken out by people of my generation when loans were very modest and so was the cost of a university education. I paid almost my entire way through two scholarships, the rest coming from money I earned and a modest amount from my parents. My husband paid almost his entire way (including out of state tuition which is more $) by money he earned working summer jobs, and relying on very modest student loans. Because we worried less about amassing enough cash to pay for the next semester or next year, we could focus on our studies, which is the reason we were at university in the first place.

I am arguing that student loans be forgiven AND that we return to a state where taxpayers carried the bulk of the burden of higher education. After all, everyone benefits from a better educated population.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,091
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist


You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

People whose loans were forgiven aren't taxpayers anymore? Where do I sign up?
They're harmed, they're just benefited more than they are harmed.
By this standard, you are harmed by breathing oxygen.
Non. Net positive effects (if that's what happens) does not mean you did not have negative effects.

Protectionist tariffs harm everybody overall, but a smaller, specialised group of people have a net benefit from them. But even that smaller, specialised group is harmed by the tariffs that benefit different, specialised groups.
Needing to get up early to go to my job to earn money to pay my bills involved a couple of negatives. The positive (pay, benefits) outweighed the negative (getting up early, commuting, the job itself). Are you saying it was wrong for me to go to work to earn money to pay my bills? Should I have stayed home instead, collecting welfare?
No, I'm saying just because you personally had a net benefit doesn't everyone had a net benefit and it doesn't mean you didn't give up something (get harmed) to get it.
My god—you need to stop harming yourself by posting in this forum immediately! Think of all the time and energy you have given up in order to get whatever gain you feel you derive from your participation here! Don’t forget to quit your job! Think of all the hours and hours you give up for a few measly dollars! Please stop harming yourself!!!

Of course that paragraph w as entirely facetious. No one wants you to quit posting or to quit your job. But everything we do is a trade off. We give up time in order to go to and perform our jobs, shop for food and other necessities, prepare meals, clean up after, etc. We benefit from all of those things, as well. I’m about to go outside and do some yard work which I will pay for with sore muscles and stiff joints and sun exposure. I’m ‘harming’ myself in your parlance. I’m also benefitting from the exercise, fresh air, flowers and vegetables I will enjoy and eventually when I sell my home, the value of the property will increase because of my labors. I see it as a net benefit because, despite some expected stiffness and soreness ( harms) and loss of time I could spend conversing with you here ( another harm), I find it worthwhile and enjoyable.

Everything is a trade off. Even breathing.

Society benefits from having a well educated population. Society should bear those costs.
I understand there are tradeoffs to everything. You are discounting to zero the things given up on the other side of the equation when debts owed to the US are needlessly forgiven.
Needlessly?
Yes.

What is needless is for the government to loan its citizens money at any interest rate >0% in order to procure an education at a public university.
You object to loaning the money at all. You want it to be free.

The citizens are already paying for the university.
Citizens are partly paying for public universities. They're not completely paying, otherwise there wouldn't be any loans at all.
You are very fond of telling other people what they think and want. You actually are quite wrong in..well, every case I can bring to mind.

There is nothing wrong with lending money interest free. I borrowed money to purchase an automobile and get this: the 6 year loan is interest free. Actually, that's what I did for the previous car as well.

Of course I do not want universities to be free of cost. Tax payers should be footing a much higher portion of the cost. I am arguing that students are expected to take on a much heavier burden of debt in order to obtain an education that will allow them to pursue the careers they want compared with the level of debt one would incur from student loans taken out by people of my generation when loans were very modest and so was the cost of a university education. I paid almost my entire way through two scholarships, the rest coming from money I earned and a modest amount from my parents. My husband paid almost his entire way (including out of state tuition which is more $) by money he earned working summer jobs, and relying on very modest student loans. Because we worried less about amassing enough cash to pay for the next semester or next year, we could focus on our studies, which is the reason we were at university in the first place.

I am arguing that student loans be forgiven AND that we return to a state where taxpayers carried the bulk of the burden of higher education. After all, everyone benefits from a better educated population.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing taxpayers carry the full burden of education, but zero interest loans amid major improvements in state funding of tuition would take a decent enough bite out of the problem so as to at least guarantee it's not a "debt treadmill".

I would prefer to see l, at the very least, certain courses actually be "free of charge", particularly the core "liberal arts" segment of a 2 year degree. This, at the very least, so that they learn things like English, literature, some math or at least some statistics, at least one philosophy course...
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,677
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all


You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

People whose loans were forgiven aren't taxpayers anymore? Where do I sign up?
They're harmed, they're just benefited more than they are harmed.
By this standard, you are harmed by breathing oxygen.
Non. Net positive effects (if that's what happens) does not mean you did not have negative effects.

Protectionist tariffs harm everybody overall, but a smaller, specialised group of people have a net benefit from them. But even that smaller, specialised group is harmed by the tariffs that benefit different, specialised groups.
Needing to get up early to go to my job to earn money to pay my bills involved a couple of negatives. The positive (pay, benefits) outweighed the negative (getting up early, commuting, the job itself). Are you saying it was wrong for me to go to work to earn money to pay my bills? Should I have stayed home instead, collecting welfare?
No, I'm saying just because you personally had a net benefit doesn't everyone had a net benefit and it doesn't mean you didn't give up something (get harmed) to get it.
My god—you need to stop harming yourself by posting in this forum immediately! Think of all the time and energy you have given up in order to get whatever gain you feel you derive from your participation here! Don’t forget to quit your job! Think of all the hours and hours you give up for a few measly dollars! Please stop harming yourself!!!

Of course that paragraph w as entirely facetious. No one wants you to quit posting or to quit your job. But everything we do is a trade off. We give up time in order to go to and perform our jobs, shop for food and other necessities, prepare meals, clean up after, etc. We benefit from all of those things, as well. I’m about to go outside and do some yard work which I will pay for with sore muscles and stiff joints and sun exposure. I’m ‘harming’ myself in your parlance. I’m also benefitting from the exercise, fresh air, flowers and vegetables I will enjoy and eventually when I sell my home, the value of the property will increase because of my labors. I see it as a net benefit because, despite some expected stiffness and soreness ( harms) and loss of time I could spend conversing with you here ( another harm), I find it worthwhile and enjoyable.

Everything is a trade off. Even breathing.

Society benefits from having a well educated population. Society should bear those costs.
I understand there are tradeoffs to everything. You are discounting to zero the things given up on the other side of the equation when debts owed to the US are needlessly forgiven.
Needlessly?
Yes.

What is needless is for the government to loan its citizens money at any interest rate >0% in order to procure an education at a public university.
You object to loaning the money at all. You want it to be free.

The citizens are already paying for the university.
Citizens are partly paying for public universities. They're not completely paying, otherwise there wouldn't be any loans at all.
You are very fond of telling other people what they think and want. You actually are quite wrong in..well, every case I can bring to mind.

There is nothing wrong with lending money interest free. I borrowed money to purchase an automobile and get this: the 6 year loan is interest free. Actually, that's what I did for the previous car as well.

Of course I do not want universities to be free of cost. Tax payers should be footing a much higher portion of the cost. I am arguing that students are expected to take on a much heavier burden of debt in order to obtain an education that will allow them to pursue the careers they want compared with the level of debt one would incur from student loans taken out by people of my generation when loans were very modest and so was the cost of a university education. I paid almost my entire way through two scholarships, the rest coming from money I earned and a modest amount from my parents. My husband paid almost his entire way (including out of state tuition which is more $) by money he earned working summer jobs, and relying on very modest student loans. Because we worried less about amassing enough cash to pay for the next semester or next year, we could focus on our studies, which is the reason we were at university in the first place.

I am arguing that student loans be forgiven AND that we return to a state where taxpayers carried the bulk of the burden of higher education. After all, everyone benefits from a better educated population.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing taxpayers carry the full burden of education, but zero interest loans amid major improvements in state funding of tuition would take a decent enough bite out of the problem so as to at least guarantee it's not a "debt treadmill".

I would prefer to see l, at the very least, certain courses actually be "free of charge", particularly the core "liberal arts" segment of a 2 year degree. This, at the very least, so that they learn things like English, literature, some math or at least some statistics, at least one philosophy course...
Not to quibble but math and statistics are not generally considered liberal arts.

I agree that state universities should be fully funded by the government but I see a few problems: I’m concerned that the overall quality would be difficult to maintain with funding that would rely on the whims of legislators. Medicaid does not pay the entire cost of providing treatment to patients ts and increasingly, neither does Medicare, making it necessary for some practices to limit the number of Medicaid and Medicare patients they will see: they have to because otherwise they would go broke.

I also am concerned that under full government funding there might be a push fir full giver me t control. Academic freedom is too important, too integral to higher education.

Thirdly, I am concerned, under the financial and control issues above that there will be an even larger gap, perceived or in reality, in the quality of public and private universities. The gap between the haves and the have nots will increase, which is bad for democracy and bad for humanity.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,772
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
So? You’re upset that some students had parents who were well enough off to provide tuition for their kids to give them the best start in life— You think that’s a bad thing?

Do you also think vaccinations are ineffective if they don’t hurt? Medicine doesn’t work unless it tastes bad?

You are correct that many 18 year olds are not as motivated as they could be to get the most out of (fill in the blank, including youth!). They are 18. Still kids. Not very mature. It’s a biology thing.

You want to punish everyone because…they didn’t suffer as much as you did?

That’s pretty messed up.
They weren't there to learn. Whatever degrees they earned, if they earned any, wouldn't be worth much in the market.
 
Top Bottom