Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

[bilby]

Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.

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

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

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.

It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.

No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

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

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.

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

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

That's just nuts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.

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

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

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.

It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.

No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

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

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.

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

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

That's just nuts.

But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits.

 

[bilby]

Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.

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

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

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.

It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.

No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

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

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.

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

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

That's just nuts.

But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits.

Only if we assume that educating people has no positive impact on economic growth, and that taxing educated people at a higher rate than others on the same income has no negative impact on economic growth.

Neither seems like a very reasonable assumption.

 

[Metaphor]

Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.

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

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

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.

It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.

No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

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

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.

And when the taxpayer paid the cost for the student, it was with the student's promise to pay the amount back.

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

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

That's just nuts.

"Nuts" is characterising loan repayments as a tax. It is not one.

 

[laughing dog]

Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.

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

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

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.

It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.

No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

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

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.

And when the taxpayer paid the cost for the student, it was with the student's promise to pay the amount back.

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

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

That's just nuts.

"Nuts" is characterising loan repayments as a tax. It is not one.

Not to anyone who is even remotely economically literate. bilby is correct in that when the gov't forgives a loan repayment has the same economic impact on the borrower as a tax cut. The loan payment has the same immediate economic impact on the borrower as a tax payment.

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

 

[Worldtraveller]

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

I see this as a good thing

Not if you are a Republican. How could their party possibly survive, let alone thrive, in a country where there are no barriers to education? So many of their party positions require scientific illiteracy to seem tenable, to the point of being wholly unaware of climatology, geology, epidemiology, and most of the social sciences.

Like I said.......
and I'm old enough to remember when the Republicans were ethical.

Wow.

You're old!

 

[Metaphor]

Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.

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

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

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.

It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.

No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

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

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.

And when the taxpayer paid the cost for the student, it was with the student's promise to pay the amount back.

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

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

That's just nuts.

"Nuts" is characterising loan repayments as a tax. It is not one.

Not to anyone who is even remotely economically literate. bilby is correct in that when the gov't forgives a loan repayment has the same economic impact on the borrower as a tax cut. The loan payment has the same immediate economic impact on the borrower as a tax payment.

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

bilby said:

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

That characterisation is false and nuts. It ignores everything about how student debts are incurred.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits.

Only if we assume that educating people has no positive impact on economic growth, and that taxing educated people at a higher rate than others on the same income has no negative impact on economic growth.

Neither seems like a very reasonable assumption.

Goalposts!!!

The issue was loan forgiveness, not the value of education in the first place.

 

[Toni]

But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits.

Only if we assume that educating people has no positive impact on economic growth, and that taxing educated people at a higher rate than others on the same income has no negative impact on economic growth.

Neither seems like a very reasonable assumption.

Goalposts!!!

The issue was loan forgiveness, not the value of education in the first place.

You're so married to your position that you aren't able to see: The value to society of having a well education populace > value of the student loans.

 

[bilby]

But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits.

Only if we assume that educating people has no positive impact on economic growth, and that taxing educated people at a higher rate than others on the same income has no negative impact on economic growth.

Neither seems like a very reasonable assumption.

Goalposts!!!

The issue was loan forgiveness, not the value of education in the first place.

The claim I am addressing is "But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits."

This isn't true, if the value of the education to the economy causes more benefits and/or lower taxes for future taxpayers.

I am not moving any goalposts; If my rebuttal of your explicit claim is off topic, then your claim was the goalpost move.

 

[laughing dog]

Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.

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

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

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.

It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.

No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

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

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.

And when the taxpayer paid the cost for the student, it was with the student's promise to pay the amount back.

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

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

That's just nuts.

"Nuts" is characterising loan repayments as a tax. It is not one.

Not to anyone who is even remotely economically literate. bilby is correct in that when the gov't forgives a loan repayment has the same economic impact on the borrower as a tax cut. The loan payment has the same immediate economic impact on the borrower as a tax payment.

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

bilby said:

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

That characterisation is false and nuts. It ignores everything about how student debts are incurred.

I bold-faced and italicized the part of my response you clearly did not understand. If you did, you'd know your response is nuts.

 

[Metaphor]

Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.

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

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

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.

It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.

No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

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

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.

And when the taxpayer paid the cost for the student, it was with the student's promise to pay the amount back.

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

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

That's just nuts.

"Nuts" is characterising loan repayments as a tax. It is not one.

Not to anyone who is even remotely economically literate. bilby is correct in that when the gov't forgives a loan repayment has the same economic impact on the borrower as a tax cut. The loan payment has the same immediate economic impact on the borrower as a tax payment.

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

bilby said:

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

That characterisation is false and nuts. It ignores everything about how student debts are incurred.

I bold-faced and italicized the part of my response you clearly did not understand. If you did, you'd know your response is nuts.

No, your bolded and italicised part is irrelevant.

In Australia, university debts (that arise from course fees) are paid back through the taxation system and are income-contingent, like a tax.

But they are not a tax.

Neither are they a tax in America, whether they repayments are income-contingent or not.

Therefore, for bilby to say:

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

Is fucking nuts. We don't demand any such thing, no matter how you falsely analogise an income-contingent debt being re-paid through the taxation infrastructure, and a debt to the government. Repaying a debt to the government is not paying "extra taxes".

Indeed, in Australia, it's already subsidised debt. Some course fees are almost completely covered by the government, and for courses that are not, they fees are heavily subsidised and the debt (the remainder of the fee) is not subject to interest but annual CPI adjustment only (to ensure the debt is not inflated away to nothing).

 

[Metaphor]

But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits.

Only if we assume that educating people has no positive impact on economic growth, and that taxing educated people at a higher rate than others on the same income has no negative impact on economic growth.

Neither seems like a very reasonable assumption.

Goalposts!!!

The issue was loan forgiveness, not the value of education in the first place.

You're so married to your position that you aren't able to see: The value to society of having a well education populace > value of the student loans.

First, your sentence is an assertion without evidence.

Second, even if it were true, so what? The proposition does not somehow justify forgiveness of debts.

 

[Toni]

But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits.

Only if we assume that educating people has no positive impact on economic growth, and that taxing educated people at a higher rate than others on the same income has no negative impact on economic growth.

Neither seems like a very reasonable assumption.

Goalposts!!!

The issue was loan forgiveness, not the value of education in the first place.

You're so married to your position that you aren't able to see: The value to society of having a well education populace > value of the student loans.

First, your sentence is an assertion without evidence.

Second, even if it were true, so what? The proposition does not somehow justify forgiveness of debts.

Cool story bro.

 

[Metaphor]

But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits.

Only if we assume that educating people has no positive impact on economic growth, and that taxing educated people at a higher rate than others on the same income has no negative impact on economic growth.

Neither seems like a very reasonable assumption.

Goalposts!!!

The issue was loan forgiveness, not the value of education in the first place.

You're so married to your position that you aren't able to see: The value to society of having a well education populace > value of the student loans.

First, your sentence is an assertion without evidence.

Second, even if it were true, so what? The proposition does not somehow justify forgiveness of debts.

Cool story bro.

Cheers luv

 

[laughing dog]

Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.

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

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

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.

It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.

No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

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

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.

And when the taxpayer paid the cost for the student, it was with the student's promise to pay the amount back.

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

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

That's just nuts.

"Nuts" is characterising loan repayments as a tax. It is not one.

Not to anyone who is even remotely economically literate. bilby is correct in that when the gov't forgives a loan repayment has the same economic impact on the borrower as a tax cut. The loan payment has the same immediate economic impact on the borrower as a tax payment.

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

bilby said:

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

That characterisation is false and nuts. It ignores everything about how student debts are incurred.

I bold-faced and italicized the part of my response you clearly did not understand. If you did, you'd know your response is nuts.

No, your bolded and italicised part is irrelevant.

This is an indication you still have not read my response with a modicum of understanding. Because if you had, you'd understand that the phrase "argument rests on the implicit premise that " means your response is completely irrelevant.

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

In Australia, university debts...

The discussion is about the policy in the USA about debts in the USA. Hence your comments about Australia is truly pointless.

 

[Toni]

Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.

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

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

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.

It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.

No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

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

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.

And when the taxpayer paid the cost for the student, it was with the student's promise to pay the amount back.

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

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

That's just nuts.

"Nuts" is characterising loan repayments as a tax. It is not one.

Not to anyone who is even remotely economically literate. bilby is correct in that when the gov't forgives a loan repayment has the same economic impact on the borrower as a tax cut. The loan payment has the same immediate economic impact on the borrower as a tax payment.

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

bilby said:

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

That characterisation is false and nuts. It ignores everything about how student debts are incurred.

I bold-faced and italicized the part of my response you clearly did not understand. If you did, you'd know your response is nuts.

No, your bolded and italicised part is irrelevant.

In Australia, university debts (that arise from course fees) are paid back through the taxation system and are income-contingent, like a tax.

But they are not a tax.

Neither are they a tax in America, whether they repayments are income-contingent or not.

Therefore, for bilby to say:

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

Is fucking nuts. We don't demand any such thing, no matter how you falsely analogise an income-contingent debt being re-paid through the taxation infrastructure, and a debt to the government. Repaying a debt to the government is not paying "extra taxes".

Indeed, in Australia, it's already subsidised debt. Some course fees are almost completely covered by the government, and for courses that are not, they fees are heavily subsidised and the debt (the remainder of the fee) is not subject to interest but annual CPI adjustment only (to ensure the debt is not inflated away to nothing).

I think it is fantastic that Australia heavily subsidizes university education. I would be far less in favor of the government putting pressure on students to choose subjects according to the rate of subsidation rather than according to store ts’ interests and talents. But that’s me. I am sure Australia has a system that works for them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits.

Only if we assume that educating people has no positive impact on economic growth, and that taxing educated people at a higher rate than others on the same income has no negative impact on economic growth.

Neither seems like a very reasonable assumption.

Goalposts!!!

The issue was loan forgiveness, not the value of education in the first place.

You're so married to your position that you aren't able to see: The value to society of having a well education populace > value of the student loans.

Which doesn't address the point. You're still trying to move the goalposts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits.

Only if we assume that educating people has no positive impact on economic growth, and that taxing educated people at a higher rate than others on the same income has no negative impact on economic growth.

Neither seems like a very reasonable assumption.

Goalposts!!!

The issue was loan forgiveness, not the value of education in the first place.

The claim I am addressing is "But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits."

This isn't true, if the value of the education to the economy causes more benefits and/or lower taxes for future taxpayers.

I am not moving any goalposts; If my rebuttal of your explicit claim is off topic, then your claim was the goalpost move.

Insisting it's only 7 days doesn't make it not a week. You're still doing the same misdirection.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits.

Only if we assume that educating people has no positive impact on economic growth, and that taxing educated people at a higher rate than others on the same income has no negative impact on economic growth.

Neither seems like a very reasonable assumption.

Goalposts!!!

The issue was loan forgiveness, not the value of education in the first place.

You're so married to your position that you aren't able to see: The value to society of having a well education populace > value of the student loans.

First, your sentence is an assertion without evidence.

Second, even if it were true, so what? The proposition does not somehow justify forgiveness of debts.

Cool story bro.

A complete non-response. You're conceding?