The case has absolutely not been made that forgiving the debt is beneficial to society.The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.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.It ‘harms’ taxpayers only if all you are concerned with is moneyThat 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.Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy areWhat have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and
Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.2) the forgiveness of the debt by gov’t necessarily harms taxpayers.
The value of the education is not taken away by not forgiving debt. It is a category error to rabbit on about the value of education, as Toni did, as if the education would evaporate if you had to pay for it.Wrong. The value of the education appears when the person receiving the education goes on to do things that are beneficial to the community he or she is part of, like inventing a cure for a disease, or developing technology that makes our lives better, or designing a new road that provides access to an isolated rural community, or writing a book that entertains millions, or becoming a teacher or stay home mom/dad who teaches their children how to be good citizens of the planet. Education is the fertilizer that allows people to achieve their potential towards making the world a better place.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.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.
The education has already happened, with students who entered into a debt with the promise to pay it back.See above. The role of government is to better the lives of the community, and education is a big part of accomplishing that goal.Forgiving debt does not cause the value of the education to appear.
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.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.
Why can I not? Are you of the opinion that the education will evaporate if people who promised to pay for it continue to pay for it?You cannot talk about debt forgiveness without the broader context of the value of education.
What a strange argument. Who do you think made such an argument?And we shouldn't be engaging in the practice of forcing young people to remain in debt for decades simply because that is how it has been done in the past. "We should continue to punish people by making them stay in debt because that is how we have always done it" is a piss-poor argument. And downright stupid.