Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

[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.

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

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

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

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

That's just nuts.

That statement is false and nuts.

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

No, it was not pointless. The point was that repaying a debt is not "paying taxes."

You are simply mistaken. Not that it will stop your repetition of taking quotes of the context of the discusion, and economic illiteracy.

Paying back debts to the government is not "extra taxes."

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

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

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

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

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

Because I have an interest in good government and sound thinking.

Also, you don't really have that firm a grasp on the implication of taxes, fees, government spending, the multiplier effect, or other basic economic principles.

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

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

 

[Toni]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's just nuts.

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

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

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

bilby said:

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

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

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

No, your bolded and italicised part is irrelevant.

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

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

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

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

That's just nuts.

That statement is false and nuts.

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

No, it was not pointless. The point was that repaying a debt is not "paying taxes."

You are simply mistaken. Not that it will stop your repetition of taking quotes of the context of the discusion, and economic illiteracy.

Paying back debts to the government is not "extra taxes."

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

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

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

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

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

Because I have an interest in good government and sound thinking.

Also, you don't really have that firm a grasp on the implication of taxes, fees, government spending, the multiplier effect, or other basic economic principles.

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

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

Actually, YOU did make an economic argument. You just don't understand economics or taxation well enough to realize you did.

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

 

[Metaphor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's just nuts.

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

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

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

bilby said:

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

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

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

No, your bolded and italicised part is irrelevant.

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

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

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

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

That's just nuts.

That statement is false and nuts.

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

No, it was not pointless. The point was that repaying a debt is not "paying taxes."

You are simply mistaken. Not that it will stop your repetition of taking quotes of the context of the discusion, and economic illiteracy.

Paying back debts to the government is not "extra taxes."

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

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

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

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

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

Because I have an interest in good government and sound thinking.

Also, you don't really have that firm a grasp on the implication of taxes, fees, government spending, the multiplier effect, or other basic economic principles.

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

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

Actually, YOU did make an economic argument. You just don't understand economics or taxation well enough to realize you did.

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

Sure luv.

 

[laughing dog]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's just nuts.

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

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

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

bilby said:

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

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

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

No, your bolded and italicised part is irrelevant.

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

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

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

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

That's just nuts.

That statement is false and nuts.

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

No, it was not pointless. The point was that repaying a debt is not "paying taxes."

You are simply mistaken. Not that it will stop your repetition of taking quotes of the context of the discusion, and economic illiteracy.

Paying back debts to the government is not "extra taxes."

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

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

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

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

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

Because I have an interest in good government and sound thinking.

If you think your posts are evidence of either, you are mistaken.

Also, you don't really have that firm a grasp on the implication of taxes, fees, government spending, the multiplier effect, or other basic economic principles.

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

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

Technically you are correct, since your position is economically illiterate. But you are responding to an economic argument.

 

[laughing dog]

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

I do admire your imagination, but that hallucinatory.

 

[Canard DuJour]

The Meme that Refuses to Die: Government Debt Must Be Paid Back

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

(...)

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

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

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

This is the leftist equivalent of tax cuts pay for themselves. It's no more correct.

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

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

Exactly the same crap as the right is peddling.

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

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

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

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

 

[Canard DuJour]

Fifteen Fatal Fallacies of Financial Fundamentalism

- William Vickrey, Nobel Laureate in Economics

Fallacy 1

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

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

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

Vickrey, William. 1996. 15 Fatal Fallacies of Financial Fundamentalism

 

[ZiprHead]

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

Also admissions counselors (salespersons) will encourage taking out loans to potential students.

 

[Rhea]

Compare the number of positions asking for a certain degree with the number of people who want that degree. The state should provide more funding for degrees where the ratio of ask to want is higher.

The government is definitely not smart enough to know what courses are valuable it will be valuable in the future.

Note that I'm talking degrees, not specific classes.

The government is t really a good predictor of where the economy will be in 4 or 10 years. Think of all the kinds of jobs there are now that didn’t exist 15 years ago.

Unless you are going into a very specific field, your major doesn’t matter much. Sure, it does if you want to be an accountant or a nurse or a teacher. Beyond that? Not so much.

Really, now? You don't realize there are degrees with very poor job prospects because there's so little demand for the skill? Such basically worthless degrees are a fair chunk of the student loan problem.

Loren, you seem to be under the impression that an undergraduate degree is the end of learning and growth. Let me offer you some examples that refute your thesis:

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


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

 

[Politesse]

It's also just, you know, quantitatively wrong. Some degrees have more market value than others, but there is no such thing as a worthless degree - all college degrees increase the lifetime earnings of those who earn them. On average, US workers with a bachelor's degree outearn their non-degreed competitors by more than double, and the gap has been widing, not narrowing, over the last few decades.

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

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

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Exactly the same crap as the right is peddling.

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

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

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

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

You're not addressing my point.

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

 

[Toni]

Exactly the same crap as the right is peddling.

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

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

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

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

You're not addressing my point.

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

Well, we won't know unless it happens, right?

 

[Metaphor]

Also, you don't really have that firm a grasp on the implication of taxes, fees, government spending, the multiplier effect, or other basic economic principles.

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

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

Technically you are correct, since your position is economically illiterate. But you are responding to an economic argument.

What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?

 

[Metaphor]

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

I do admire your imagination, but that hallucinatory.

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

 

[Jarhyn]

Exactly the same crap as the right is peddling.

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

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

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

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

You're not addressing my point.

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

I don't think anyone is arguing that it will necessarily grow the economy.

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

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

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

 

[laughing dog]

What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?

Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy are
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and
2) the forgiveness of the debt by gov’t necessarily harms taxpayers.

 

[laughing dog]

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

Nope. I am trying (and failing) to correct the economically illiterate discussion. I am not enabling anyone.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Exactly the same crap as the right is peddling.

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

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

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

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

You're not addressing my point.

Because it's not really addressing mine.

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

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

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

 

[Metaphor]

What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?

Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy are
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and

That was your interpretation of bilby's claim, and I didn't even say it was wrong. I said calling them the same thing was nuts.

2) the forgiveness of the debt by gov’t necessarily harms taxpayers.

Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.

 

[Toni]

What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?

Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy are
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and

That was your interpretation of bilby's claim, and I didn't even say it was wrong. I said calling them the same thing was nuts.

2) the forgiveness of the debt by gov’t necessarily harms taxpayers.

Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.

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