Marco Rubio endorses slavery

[untermensche]

Within a capitalist economy these are your choices. But of course there are ways to provide people with decent housing without forcing them into a form of servitude. But nobody profits from those schemes.

Just because someone profits from something, it does not make that thing slavery.

Of course not. But there are forms of economic servitude. The home mortgage and rents are one of them.

Undoubtedly. But, once again, what is your solution to removing those leeches?

That's a huge topic and I will be be derailing this thread about a man stupid enough and bought off enough to win the Republican nomination.

But there are Anarchist solutions to the problems of economic servitude.

The house slaves didn't think things were so bad either.

Yes, but then again they were actual slaves....

They thought they were special and wondered what all the complaining was about.

 

[dismal]

I don't necessarily agree that Rubio's idea is a good one. I actually loathe the man

One would think this is two separate things.

Rubio's idea sounds a lot more "progressive" than the current system.

Assuming the same amount of money is to be collected, Rubio's method would collect more from higher income Richie McRicherson's and less from noble and heroically unemployed people than the current system where everyone pays the same regardless of income.

But, though it be more progressive, it's the loathsome Rubio so *real* progressives must beclown themselves and call it "slavery" and other sorts of jackanapery .

 

[untermensche]

I don't necessarily agree that Rubio's idea is a good one. I actually loathe the man

One would think this is two separate things.

Rubio's idea sounds a lot more "progressive" than the current system.

Assuming the same amount of money is to be collected, Rubio's method would collect more from higher income Richie McRicherson's and less from noble and heroically unemployed people than the current system where everyone pays the same regardless of income.

But, though it be more progressive, it's the loathsome Rubio so *real* progressives must beclown themselves and call it "slavery" and other sorts of jackanapery .

A progressive solution is what the Germans are doing.

Making higher education free.

 

[EricK]

One would think this is two separate things.

Rubio's idea sounds a lot more "progressive" than the current system.

Assuming the same amount of money is to be collected, Rubio's method would collect more from higher income Richie McRicherson's and less from noble and heroically unemployed people than the current system where everyone pays the same regardless of income.

But, though it be more progressive, it's the loathsome Rubio so *real* progressives must beclown themselves and call it "slavery" and other sorts of jackanapery .

A progressive solution is what the Germans are doing.

Making higher education free.

I see, so you are arguing for a system where someone else pays for your education and in exchange you pay them a proportion of your income for the rest of your life.

 

[untermensche]

A progressive solution is what the Germans are doing.

Making higher education free.

I see, so you are arguing for a system where someone else pays for your education and in exchange you pay them a proportion of your income for the rest of your life.

You have to pay taxes anyway.

But the Rubio solution, and again it must be pointed out this dimwit couldn't think his way out of a wet paper bag, it is a plan devised by others looking to profit from the insane cost of higher education, makes people pay above and beyond their tax burden to pay for their education.

 

[KeepTalking]

I don't necessarily agree that Rubio's idea is a good one. I actually loathe the man

One would think this is two separate things.

And one would be correct. One might also note that the two things were included in two separate sentences.

Rubio's idea sounds a lot more "progressive" than the current system.

I noted that I don't "necessarily" agree with the idea. Unstated, but equally true, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea. On the face of it, it does not sound all the bad, but my participation in this thread is less about the idea itself, and more about the characterization of that idea as endorsing slavery. Had that characterization not been present, I likely would have lurked in this thread for some time, watching the arguments, pro and con, play out, without commenting myself.

Assuming the same amount of money is to be collected, Rubio's method would collect more from higher income Richie McRicherson's and less from noble and heroically unemployed people than the current system where everyone pays the same regardless of income.

Seems legit, and all things being equal, this would be a valid argument. On the other hand, Richie McRicherson would not need the loan in the first place, as the McRicherson family would just pay the tuition for him outright.

But, though it be more progressive, it's the loathsome Rubio so *real* progressives must beclown themselves and call it "slavery" and other sorts of jackanapery .

I am the one who said that I loathe Rubio, yet I am also arguing that the idea he is endorsing is in no way slavery. So, who is acting the clown now?

 

[dismal]

I am the one who said that I loathe Rubio, yet I am also arguing that the idea he is endorsing is in no way slavery. So, who is acting the clown now?

I wasn't suggesting you were the one acting like a clown.

Indeed I award you two bonus points for being the least clownish "progressive" here. So far anyway. I'm sensing some reversion.

 

[ksen]

I don't necessarily agree that Rubio's idea is a good one. I actually loathe the man

One would think this is two separate things.

Rubio's idea sounds a lot more "progressive" than the current system.

Assuming the same amount of money is to be collected, Rubio's method would collect more from higher income Richie McRicherson's and less from noble and heroically unemployed people than the current system where everyone pays the same regardless of income.

But, though it be more progressive, it's the loathsome Rubio so *real* progressives must beclown themselves and call it "slavery" and other sorts of jackanapery .

APPLESAUCE!!

 

[Sarpedon]

Why wouldn't the same arguments against 'flat tax' apply to this as well?

 

[ksen]

Let's pause and reflect for a moment about how taxes paid to government could possibly be different than paying a set percentage of your wages to a private entity.

 

[Trausti]

Rubio must be an Australian.

In Australia, there is no such thing as a grace period, deferment, or forbearance. Instead, there is a minimum threshold income at which student-loan repayment is expected to commence. Currently, that threshold income is around $45,000 per year and as soon as the borrower meets that threshold, whether it is while the student is still in school or even years after graduation, repayments begin. The monthly payment amount is not based on the size or term of the loan, but instead on the borrower’s level of income, with students at the threshold level paying 4-percent of their earnings in loan payments and those earning higher wages paying no more than 8 percent of their earnings. Unlike in our Income Based Repayment program, interest does not capitalize and the total amount due does not increase just because a longer repayment term is in order (unless the economy is so strong that CPI increases dramatically over that period of time, in which case one would assume that wages would maintain a similar rate of growth).

http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/does-australia-have-the-answer/41015

 

[dismal]

Let's pause and reflect for a moment about how taxes paid to government could possibly be different than paying a set percentage of your wages to a private entity.

The private entity can't send men with guns to throw you in jail?

The private entity can't attach a bankruptcy proof lien to you that lasts for the rest of your life?

 

[Bronzeage]

An educated citizenry is a public good and a public resource. It's government's responsibility to invest in and preserve public resources, acting as the agent for all citizens.

This is why we expect the government to handle the problems of financing public education. The question is how much to invest in our future citizenry. What Rubio is trying to do is find a way to shift this burden away from government, to private industry. It sounds good, but what's the catch?

It's should be obvious. Private enterprise costs more. The benefit of someone else's education is difficult to measure. It's very difficult to put a monetary value and it's inefficient to even try. Everyone pays into the pot and the government pays the bills.

When we shift this over to private enterprise, this basic inefficiency must be exceeded before they will even consider it. This means more money spent on fewer students. We get a less educated citizenry and it costs more.

 

[untermensche]

Let's pause and reflect for a moment about how taxes paid to government could possibly be different than paying a set percentage of your wages to a private entity.

The tax burden for a decent society is spread throughout that society.

And sane tax policy would make those least harmed in terms of real world survival by taxation to carry the highest burden.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't necessarily agree that Rubio's idea is a good one. I actually loathe the man

One would think this is two separate things.

Rubio's idea sounds a lot more "progressive" than the current system.

Assuming the same amount of money is to be collected, Rubio's method would collect more from higher income Richie McRicherson's and less from noble and heroically unemployed people than the current system where everyone pays the same regardless of income.

But, though it be more progressive, it's the loathsome Rubio so *real* progressives must beclown themselves and call it "slavery" and other sorts of jackanapery .

Yeah, it reduces the burden of student loans.

It does have only flaw, though. Rather than x% of income it should be x% of (income - some base figure, say $20k.)

 

[untermensche]

One would think this is two separate things.

Rubio's idea sounds a lot more "progressive" than the current system.

Assuming the same amount of money is to be collected, Rubio's method would collect more from higher income Richie McRicherson's and less from noble and heroically unemployed people than the current system where everyone pays the same regardless of income.

But, though it be more progressive, it's the loathsome Rubio so *real* progressives must beclown themselves and call it "slavery" and other sorts of jackanapery .

Yeah, it reduces the burden of student loans.

It does have only flaw, though. Rather than x% of income it should be x% of (income - some base figure, say $20k.)

It does absolutely nothing about the insane cost of higher education in the US.

It is just a way to pretend to have a solution when all you have is a scheme to make investors more money off the oppressive costs of higher education.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The key question behind this is how beholden universities should be to corporations. If they become the main funding source for unversities, then they are going to be the ones who have the most influence over what is taught at those universities. Conversations such as "Your professor's research into lead poisoning could adversely affect the profits from my lead mining business. Shit-can his studies or I'll take the cash from the fifty students I finance each year to another institution" would be something that adminstrators would need to worry about.

 

[Sarpedon]

Let's pause and reflect for a moment about how taxes paid to government could possibly be different than paying a set percentage of your wages to a private entity.

Please, explain the difference.

The relevant argument is that a flat rate hurts the poor, for whom a greater percentage is spent on necessities, more than the rich.

I fail to see how the destination of the money alters that fact.

That's not even my main objection to this 'policy.' My main objection is that it appears to be another republican attempt to destroy education in the guise of helping it. As much as I hate the current student loan situation, it encourages colleges to admit and educate a lot of people. Rubio's policy would be quite the reverse of that. Colleges will be pressured to not admit medium achieving students, and eliminate majors that aren't high paying. Net result: fewer people getting higher education. Thus, more republican voters.

 

[dismal]

A progressive solution is what the Germans are doing.

Making higher education free.

I see, so you are arguing for a system where someone else pays for your education and in exchange you pay them a proportion of your income for the rest of your life.

Don't you see, if you voluntarily enter a transaction to pay some percentage of your income for your own education that's slavery.

But if you are forced to pay some percentage of your income for someone else's education that's freedom!

 

[Bronzeage]

I see, so you are arguing for a system where someone else pays for your education and in exchange you pay them a proportion of your income for the rest of your life.

Don't you see, if you voluntarily enter a transaction to pay some percentage of your income for your own education that's slavery.

But if you are forced to pay some percentage of your income for someone else's education that's freedom!

If the intention is to concentrate wealth in the fewest hands and maintain an impoverished working class, it's a great idea to make people pay for their own education.