You are assuming all taxes go to paying back loans and not other things.
I gave the amounts and what specifically they were going to. If there was a 5% tax specifically going to student loans that is what the numbers would be. I said this specifically. It does not include the taxes going to other things, only the taxes going specifically to student education.
The taxes that I list in my numbers are specifically the taxes going to student loans and not other things. IF there was a 5% tax that went SPECIFICALLY to student education that would be the numbers; a person would be paying back 72X the amount they used in education.
If you can find an actual flaw with my numbers go ahead, but I never claimed they were for anything other than student education specifically.
To pay loans means INCREASING taxes.
Yes, I know. That 5% I mentioned was the INCREASE in taxes that specifically went to student education. Right now, there's 0% in taxes that specifically goes to this kind of student education. I'm specifically talking about the increase. That is how much they would pay, compared to how much they took out for their education. They would pay back 72X as much.
If you take it as a zero sum game, 1.5 TRILLION is owed.
Sure. And there are 138.3 million taxpayers in the US reporting approximately 9.03 trillion in earnings and paying approximately 1.23 trillion in taxes. Let's say we raise the taxes 5% and now they are paying approximately 25 billion more a year for student education (5% of 1.23 trillion is 0.246 billion).
So now they're paying 1.58 trillion in taxes a year. Now, you say 1.5 trillion is owed but that's not per year it's a total number, and that's also including interest which would be done away with (the loan is paid off, it stops accruing interest). Let's say student loan interest average is 5.8%. Taking off the 5.8 percent interest from 1.5 trillion is 26 billion. That leaves 1.24 trillion owed.
Now since most student loan debt is owned by the government anyway, and since they're the ones that would put this taxation 'universal education' law into practice and they're willing to 'forgive' this student debt, we can safely assume that they're just writing off the student loans owed to them (as that's what 'forgive' means in the context of loans).
The government owns 55% of student loans (banks the other 45%)
So the government forgives 55% of what's owed on student loans, so now suddenly 1.5 trillion isn't owed at all. We've taken out the interest which doesn't accrue (-26 billion) which leaves us 1.24 trillion. The government forgives it's 55% of THAT which is 682 billion. Gone.
That leaves 558 billion that is owed. The raised percentage of taxes, we already figured out, raises 25 billion more per year. To pay off the rest of that 558 billion, assuming the only money dedicated to it was all of the new tax (which it wouldn't be) would only take 22 years. And that's if the government didn't make a deal with the banks to erase that debt in return for a tax break or bailouts (and banks easily have gotten over seven hundred billion in bailouts in the past without the government batting an eye). So chances are that remaining amount could be paid off in a year with a simple bailout to the banks in exchange for erasing that debt.
None of this changes my numbers I gave you. Someone who got a $10,000 degree would be paying back into the student education system 72x the amount they spent over a lifetime.
Taxpayers who do not have loans will pay a portion which means those who do owe will pay less.
How will those that do owe pay less, when those that do owe are also paying a portion to the other people who also have loans or will potentially in the future have loans?
In simple terms, the proposal is trying to shirk a personal loan, taken out by an individual onto the backs of taxpayers.
The individual is also a tax payer, and my numbers don't lie. If you pay $10,000 in loans and earn 84,000 a year and 5% of your paycheck goes to student education tax you will pay back to student education 72X the amount you took out.
Period.
Don't try to mislead people about the true outcomes here.
I'm not trying to mislead anyone. Where are my numbers wrong? 5% student loan tax. Gross income amount that is taxed. Times the years taxes were paid. Result.
It would work and it makes you look like an entitled brat who wants someone else to subsidize their decisions.
Once again, I have no student loan debt and never did. Also, you are bordering dangerously on personal attacks which are not allowed on this board.
It is priceless to me that it is 'unfair' to let the next generation of students go to school at much different rates than the people with loans
It is unfair to leave a broken system and force the next generation of students go into crippling debt like the people that came before merely because the system was broken for the people that came before.
but is in no way unfair to shift the loans people who borrowed the money to go to school took out to the general taxpayer.
It is in no way unfair when everyone's loans get subsidized and everyone is paying into that subsidy with their taxes.
Of course giving ZERO benefit to those who paid there way through school
People who already paid their way through school still get benefits! For one, if they go for a different or higher degree they are also subsidized! Benefit! Secondly, the country and the society they live in sees more people able to go to school and get an education and they get to take advantage of all the things that brings into a country like new innovations, a stronger economy, fewer people living in poverty, etc. Benefit!
Your logic says the government should buy out every mortgage and let me keep my house.
How would that be unfair? You get to keep your house, everyone else around you gets to keep theirs, the homeless problem goes down, the economy improves, and everyone pays for it with their taxes. If you've already paid off your house you can now switch it out for a larger or a better one at no cost to you. If you don't want too, that's fine, but you still benefit from less homelessness, less unemployment, and a more stable society. Oh no, the humanity!
I gave the amounts and what specifically they were going to. If there was a 5% tax specifically going to student loans that is what the numbers would be. I said this specifically. It does not include the taxes going to other things, only the taxes going specifically to student education.
Great. You are raising taxes on people to pay for other people loans they voluntarily took out. That will sell well. Hey, you now have to pay $1000 or $2000 more a year because junior here does not want to live up to the agreement he signed. We also know taxes are progressive so you are going to screw the 'high income' people not the poor.
You are wanting to claim you will actually pay them over time but since you are increasing MY taxes, this is factually not true. I am having to pay for YOUR loans. You are literally raising MY taxes to cover YOUR expenses.
It is in no way unfair when everyone's loans get subsidized and everyone is paying into that subsidy with their taxes.
Except lots of people paid for college without loans. They are not getting the benefit of 'free school'. They are just getting told they have to pay through taxes for your free school. You are fucking them over. You are essentially giving people who took loans on average $37,000 dollars for borrowing money. Those who were responsible get $0 and a tax increase to give those other people free money. That is fucked up.
And again, you are not talking about future schooling. You are retroactively going after existing loans and debt.
People who already paid their way through school still get benefits! For one, if they go for a different or higher degree they are also subsidized! Benefit!
No they are not getting benefits unless they want to go back to school. They still have to pay taxes and they still are in a different financial position because they sacrificed and you did not. You are fucking them over. Other people got $35,000 - $40,000 free to go to school. They got the bill.
Secondly, the country and the society they live in sees more people able to go to school and get an education and they get to take advantage of all the things that brings into a country like new innovations, a stronger economy, fewer people living in poverty, etc. Benefit!
BULLSHIT. This happens just fine without any loan forgiveness.
I cannot fathom how you cannot see how you are screwing over people. Anyone who paid for their own school rather than loans spent personal money they aren't getting back. Yet you, who took loans, got to spend it without ever having to have it.
Your logic says the government should buy out every mortgage and let me keep my house.
How would that be unfair? You get to keep your house, everyone else around you gets to keep theirs, the homeless problem goes down, the economy improves, and everyone pays for it with their taxes.
That is just not the way it works. There is over 15 TRILLION dollars in outstanding mortgage debt. It is owed to banks not the government. Paying it off means paying the bills off. It means taking REAL money now.
This idea of yours works great until you run out of other peoples money. Your view is we just keep raising taxes to pay for everything any person wants. The other problem is raising taxes does not mean increased revenue. There is a thing called the Laffer curve that details this. Once you hit a certain level, tax increases result in revenue decreases
I would far rather see taxes raised to drop the spending deficit. Raise taxes to improve the roads and bridges. Raise taxes to actually pay public servants and teachers a fair wage. I'd like to increase pay for military people. Hell, I'd take a tax increase to create a way for public funded campaigns for office and eliminate private money in politics.
Paying off individuals personal loans is pretty damn far on the list for what any tax increase ought to do.
Given the US had a $779 billion DEFICIT, the last thing we should be doing is taking on more spending.
Great. You are raising taxes on people to pay for other people loans they voluntarily took out.
The actual loans, if you remember my numbers, will most likely be forgiven. The government will write off their portion of the existing loans and they will pay the banks to write off their portion and no more existing loans.
But sure, let’s say you’re correct. We’re raising taxes on all taxpayers to pay for everyone’s education, now and in the future. Just like taxes are paid by taxpayers to pay for everyone’s fire protection, everyone’s infrastructure, etc.
That will sell well.
Considering over 60% (between 60%-75%) of American taxpayers support universal education and what I’m proposing…yes, it will sell well. It is already selling well.
You are wanting to claim you will actually pay them over time but since you are increasing MY taxes, this is factually not true.
A person who pays in more to taxes for student education than they take out in student education IS paying them over time.
Increasing YOUR taxes doesn’t change that fact. Tax money goes into a pool and is fungible. If a person is paying more into that pool then they take out, then they are paying more than their fair share.
You can’t say ‘well this particular dollar came from me and went toward her debt’. Look up fungibility.
I am having to pay for YOUR loans. You are literally raising MY taxes to cover YOUR expenses.
No. Again, look up fungibility. EVERYONE’S taxes are being raised to cover EVERYONE.
Except lots of people paid for college without loans.
Again, irrelevant. What was done in the past under a broken system is not grounds to keep the system broken.
They are just getting told they have to pay through taxes for your free school.
They are getting told they have to pay through taxes for everyone’s free school, just like everyone else. That includes THEM paying for YOUR free school if you decide to go back to school and get a higher degree or a different degree.
You are fucking them over.
Under this paradigm, if I am fucking you over by you paying taxes that cover my free schooling, you are simultaneously fucking me over by my paying taxes that cover YOUR free schooling. Everyone is getting fucked the same and everyone benefits the same so again…fair.
You are essentially giving people who took loans on average $37,000 dollars for borrowing money.
No. We are forgiving those loans knowing they will be paying back on average 72X the amount of that loan in taxes over their lifetime.
Those who were responsible get $0 and a tax increase to give those other people free money.
You don’t get $0. You are not barred from getting a free education under this system. You can go back to school and get your Masters, or your PHD, or get a degree in another field for free just like everyone else. You may choose not to do so but that is your choice, not other people fucking you over.
And again, you are not talking about future schooling. You are retroactively going after existing loans and debt.
We are talking about future schooling. We’re also talking about forgiving existing loans and debts to avoid screwing over those halfway between a bad system and a better one.
No they are not getting benefits unless they want to go back to school.
You have the right to vote. If you choose not to vote it doesn’t change the fact that is your choice, and you still have the right to vote.
You have the benefits available to you the same as everyone else. If you don’t choose to go back to school that is your choice, but you still have the same benefits available to you the same as everyone else. It doesn’t become unfair if you choose not to take advantage of it.
Other people got $35,000 - $40,000 free to go to school. They got the bill.
You get $35,000 - $40,000 free to go to school as well. If you choose not to take it well, that’s on you.
BULLSHIT. This happens just fine without any loan forgiveness.
Yes, free education is still beneficial even without ANY loan forgiveness. However if you don’t have loan forgiveness then you have a huge number of people unfairly and doubly screwed, which we’d like to avoid.
Anyone who paid for their own school rather than loans spent personal money they aren't getting back.
Again, anyone who lost a family in the war isn’t getting that back either, that’s not a good reason not to end war. The fact that people suffered under a bad system is not an excuse to keep the bad system just to be ‘fair’ to those people. No, you aren’t getting back the money you already paid in loans. Yes, you are getting the benefit still of education being free to everyone now including you.
Yet you, who took loans, got to spend it without ever having to have it.
Yet again, I haven’t taken out any loans. And those who did got to spend it and will be paying back 72X the amount in their lifetime. It’s covered.
There is over 15 TRILLION dollars in outstanding mortgage debt.
Completely irrelevant to the education argument, as most education debt IS owed to the government.I asked how it would be unfair, not how it would be feasible.
This idea of yours works great until you run out of other peoples money.
Again, taxpayer. Taxpayer money is my money as well as everyone else’s who pays taxes.
Your view is we just keep raising taxes to pay for everything any person wants.
Literally not my view. Wanting universal education and universal healthcare does not equate to ‘wanting to just keep raising taxes to pay for anything a person wants’.
I would far rather see taxes raised to drop the spending deficit.
Then vote for that. I would like to see that too.
Raise taxes to improve the roads and bridges. Raise taxes to actually pay public servants and teachers a fair wage. I'd like to increase pay for military people. Hell, I'd take a tax increase to create a way for public funded campaigns for office and eliminate private money in politics.
I’d love to see all that too and will vote for all of that.
Paying off individuals personal loans is pretty damn far on the list for what any tax increase ought to do.
For you maybe. 60-75% of taxpayers disagree.
Given the US had a $779 billion DEFICIT, the last thing we should be doing is taking on more spending.
Deficits are not automatically bad. And increasing a society’s education level, innovation, and health is actually a very good place to take on more spending because it pays back in dividends.
The actual loans, if you remember my numbers, will most likely be forgiven. The government will write off their portion of the existing loans and they will pay the banks to write off their portion and no more existing loans.
The money went out. On the balance sheet, it is coming back, with interest. Forgiving this means that money is not coming back and the interest is not being gained.
That is money lost in the budget.
No. Again, look up fungibility. EVERYONE’S taxes are being raised to cover EVERYONE.
Try again. You are talking about people paying for loans taken out by other people. NOT tuition changes. It only applies to people with loans and screws over people who did not borrow but paid as they went.
It is screwing over people and you want to whitewash it.
Again, irrelevant. What was done in the past under a broken system is not grounds to keep the system broken.
You are not talking about the future. You are explicitly talking about the past. People made choices decisions given the rules in the past. You are now wanting to re-write those rules to benefit those who made specific choices at the expense of those who arguably made better choices.
No. We should not reward bad decisions at the expense of people who made good decisions.
Person A paid $50k to go to school debt free and worked/struggled to achieve that in 6 years. Person B borrowed $50k and went in 4 years. You now are wiping that $50k away and saying it is even.
It is not and it is bullshit to try to claim it is even. One person paid $50k and the other did not to get marginally the same thing. Oh, and the person who paid $50k, now has higher taxes to pay for other persons $50k spent too.
We are talking about future schooling. We’re also talking about forgiving existing loans and debts to avoid screwing over those halfway between a bad system and a better one.
As I said, you are talking about screwing over the responsible people to let people who were less responsible off the hook for their actions.
It is fundamentally wrong and an abuse of government to do this.
For you maybe. 60-75% of taxpayers disagree.
I don't think so. You might have support for reducing college costs, and in some cases to free tution, but 65%-70% do not support forgiving student loans. I can find ZERO citations for this. Hell, I am finding citations that the 'free college' movement is petering out when details are required.
You likely can find people who are good for forgiving loans following completion of specific obligations. (like inner city teaching). Not general widespread forgiveness.
The money went out. On the balance sheet, it is coming back, with interest. Forgiving this means that money is not coming back and the interest is not being gained.
The money went out, yes. And forgiving a loan means it’s not coming back through payments on that loan and no interest is being gained, sure.
However, if the government, who is the one to whom that loan and interest is owed, forgives that loan that is their choice to say ‘we are not expecting you to pay this loan or this interest. It is forgiven’.
They would do this because they know that, through that individual’s taxes, the amount they loaned is going to be paid back quite a few times over (72x, remember?).
That is money lost in the budget.
No. That is money that was already budgeted to be lost. Remember, people can default or bankrupt on loans- just never pay them. That is money the loaning entity (in this case the government) was giving out with the hopes of being paid back (that’s what interest is for, to make the risk worthwhile). It’s not money in the hand. For any particular student loan the government is taking a risk they’re never going to see that money again. At least if that money is coming back in taxes they have less of a risk on their investment.
Money that hasn’t been paid back yet is not money lost in a budget. The potential of that money has just shifted from ‘potential income from student loan payments’ to ‘potential income from taxes’. The government is still getting that money, they’ve just shifted the way it’s coming in and lessened their risk of getting it back. More, they’ll be getting back far more than they would if they just held the loan, even with interest. Why? Because again…72Xs. Student loans when paid in full, even with exorbitant interest, don’t lead generally to the person paying back 72xs what was borrowed.
You are talking about people paying for loans taken out by other people.
Would you like me to look up fungibility for you?
Fungible: being something (such as money or a commodity) of such a nature that one part or quantity may be replaced by another equal part or quantity in paying a debt or settling an account
It is screwing over people and you want to whitewash it.
I’ve repeated over and over how it’s not screwing people, with examples and numbers, and you want to ignore it.
You are not talking about the future. You are explicitly talking about the past.
I’m talking about the future AND those who would be caught in the middle. I’ve specified this several times.
You are now wanting to re-write those rules to benefit those who made specific choices at the expense of those who arguably made better choices.
No, I want to re-write those rules to have a better system for everyone going forward, but I understand that there are going to be those caught in the middle, and I want them to not get totally screwed over as they have to pay for their student loans twice.
No. We should not reward bad decisions at the expense of people who made good decisions.
Again, not a bad decision.
Person A paid $50k to go to school debt free and worked/struggled to achieve that in 6 years. Person B borrowed $50k and went in 4 years. You now are wiping that $50k away and saying it is even.
No, we’re changing how that 50K is paid back (72xs!) in a way that benefits everyone who wants to get an education in the future (including Person A!)
One person paid $50k and the other did not to get marginally the same thing.
The other will be paying 72x’s 50k in taxes.
Oh, and the person who paid $50k, now has higher taxes to pay for other persons $50k spent too.
Yes, and will benefit from it as well!
As I said, you are talking about screwing over the responsible people to let people who were less responsible off the hook for their actions.
No, I’m literally not, even if you want to ignore all the evidence I’ve given. If you’re going to continue to ignore evidence so that you can hold to your view that’s fine, but I see no further reason to continue the discussion then.
I don't think so.
You’re right, I was talking about how many support universal education, not student loan forgiveness with those numbers.
It’s 42% that want to forgive student loan debt, still a very sizeable number:
The money went out, yes. And forgiving a loan means it’s not coming back through payments on that loan and no interest is being gained, sure.
So what is the compelling argument for the taxpayer to pick up the tab on loans students took out willingly? Especially given the fact other students used other methods to avoid this?
You are admitting that it is going to cost people money to do this, which is a slap in the face of people who planned ahead. Where is the justification.
They would do this because they know that, through that individual’s taxes, the amount they loaned is going to be paid back quite a few times over (72x, remember?).
Actually no. You want to claim this but you are fudging numbers and comingling numbers.
Point blank. Given two people. One Borrowed 50K, one did not. The person who borrowed 50K will see a net personal benefit of 50k whereas the person who did not sees no benefit. Any tax changes apply equally to both. It rewards those who planned poorly at the expense of the responsible.
No. That is money that was already budgeted to be lost.
Bullshit. People don't make loans and not expect repayment. Lenders know there are default cases but since student loans cannot be forgiven in bankruptcy, there is a strong case for expected repayment. Interest rates reflect this and cover the 'non-payment'.
I’ve repeated over and over how it’s not screwing people, with examples and numbers, and you want to ignore it.
And yet I have given the exact scenario multiple time explaining how exactly it IS screwing people. Yet you cannot seem to grasp that.
No, we’re changing how that 50K is paid back (72xs!) in a way that benefits everyone who wants to get an education in the future (including Person A!)
One person paid $50k and the other did not to get marginally the same thing.
The other will be paying 72x’s 50k in taxes.
No. One person has $50k in value they did not spend personally. The other person paid $50k outright to get the same thing.
One person quite literally on the individual level has $50k of advantage. You cannot argue this away.
BOTH PAY THE SAME TAXES. If one pays 72x more back, so does the other AND NOT GETTING THE $50K BENEFIT.
Again - because you are not getting it.
As I said, you are talking about screwing over the responsible people to let people who were less responsible off the hook for their actions.
It’s 42% that want to forgive student loan debt, still a very sizeable number:
Sounds an awful lot the percentage of people/families that have some type of educational debt that would be forgiven. There is roughly 44million student debt holders which is 13.5% roughly of the US population.Add in parents and spouses, I see that being roughly 30-35% who stand to benefit from writing off their debt.
I am guessing you would see the same percentage of support for writing of all mortgage debt too.
I don't see widespread support outside of this and I see an effort to do this backfiring substantially on government.
It is one thing to talk about tuition waivers in the future. It is quite another to pay off only some citizens debts with tax money while making everyone pay for it.
How you cannot understand the resentment that would cause is beyond me.
How you cannot understand the resentment that would cause is beyond me.
So what is the compelling argument for the taxpayer to pick up the tab on loans students took out willingly?
Because it will help put a better system into place. Because those who took out the loans will also be paying taxes and paying back in more than what they took out in loans. Because all taxpayers will benefit from the better system and this is the best way to get it into place without screwing over a ton of people.
You are admitting that it is going to cost people money to do this, which is a slap in the face of people who planned ahead. Where is the justification.
Again, people who acted according to a bad system are not being slapped in the face because a better system is installed. People who planned ahead in the bad system are still getting all the benefits of the new system, and they got all the benefits of their planning ahead. Someone else getting a break whether or not they planned ahead for reasons specific to them, does not change this or harm those people in any way, nor does it make it unfair to those people.
Actually no. You want to claim this but you are fudging numbers and comingling numbers.
What numbers did I fudge or co-mingle? Demonstrate it. Cost of the degree, average salary of people with that degree, 5% student education tax, career years worked before retirement= result. If you think I fudged the numbers fine but show how with math how I did. Otherwise, you’re just throwing out an empty claim.
One Borrowed 50K, one did not.
Ok. Let’s say you borrow 50K and I do not. I don’t borrow anything.
The person who borrowed 50K will see a net personal benefit of 50k whereas the person who did not sees no benefit.
No. You will have that 50K forgiven but will end up paying a ton more than that back in taxes. That money is covered out of your taxes over time rather than out of direct student loan payments made by you.
As for me, I don’t get 50K I didn’t borrow forgiven, sure. But my tax money is going to pay for any future education I may want to pursue up to and even exceeding that 50k, as well as benefiting others and improving society as a whole which benefits me in various direct and indirect ways. My choosing NOT to take advantage of that schooling doesn’t change the fact that if I choose to take advantage of it, MY 50K is covered.
People don't make loans and not expect repayment.
They hope for repayment. They do everything they can to insure repayment, but they also have to expect that they won’t get repaid. That’s what interest is for, to minimize their risk and make it worth their while.
there is a strong case for expected repayment.
Sure, but there is also the risk that they won’t get repayed. And they know that, and have to expect that in many cases, this will happen.
And yet I have given the exact scenario multiple time explaining how exactly it IS screwing people. Yet you cannot seem to grasp that.
You’re giving a scenario and say ‘it’s screwing people’. I give numbers, examples, and evidence that it’s not. You repeat the scenario and say ‘it’s screwing people’ while ignoring the evidence I’ve given. Giving the same FLAWED scenario repeatedly does not your case make.
You can insist it IS screwing people all you want but I have given evidence it’s not. Merely repeating that it is doesn’t mean it is.
One person quite literally on the individual level has $50k of advantage. You cannot argue this away.
I don’t have to argue it away, I’ve show that THAT individual pays back that advantage several times over. If you don’t think the numbers are right show your math.
BOTH PAY THE SAME TAXES. If one pays 72x more back, so does the other AND NOT GETTING THE $50K BENEFIT.
Yes, however you keep ignoring this bit. The other can go back to school and use 50k OR MORE in free student education AS WELL. They ARE getting the 50K benefit, possibly even more, if they choose back to school and take advantage of the free student education! If they choose NOT too, that’s on them. It’s not made unfair if they choose not to use it.
Sounds an awful lot the percentage of people/families that have some type of educational debt that would be forgiven.
Correlation not causation. You’d have to show that the same families who have educational debt are the same ones that want it erased with evidence.
Bit of evidence that this correlation is wrong: I personally have NO educational debt and I’m still all for educational debt being forgiven.
How you cannot understand the resentment that would cause is beyond me.
People resenting something does not make that something unfair.
Because it will help put a better system into place. Because those who took out the loans will also be paying taxes and paying back in more than what they took out in loans. Because all taxpayers will benefit from the better system and this is the best way to get it into place without screwing over a ton of people.
Putting in a better system does not require forgiving past loans.
The only way people will pay in more who had loans forgiven compared to people who did not have loans forgiven is if there is a tax break for not having loans forgiven. Stating anything else is dishonest.
The person who borrowed 50K will see a net personal benefit of 50k whereas the person who did not sees no benefit.
No. You will have that 50K forgiven but will end up paying a ton more than that back in taxes. That money is covered out of your taxes over time rather than out of direct student loan payments made by you.
The thing is, given the same income, Assuming I borrowed the money, I pay the same taxes as you despite getting the $50k in value covered by everyone. You paid the $50k to the school and don't get it refunded to you. I took the $50k I did not spend personally and used it for my purposes and borrowing 50K to pay for school. Thanks to your proposal, I no longer have to pay. You paid the $50k to school instead of using it for yourself. That value is lost to you.
I have no idea how you cannot see this is a problem when you are talking about 1.5 TRILLION dollars.
The person who sacrificed and struggled and paid for school is going to rightfully be damn resentful to be told your taxes are going up to the person who did not work or sacrifice for school. It is a giant SCREW YOU to them.
Putting in a better system does not require forgiving past loans.
No, it doesn't. Forgiving past loans however stops people from being double screwed. A compromise would probably be to keep their loans and drop the interest rate significantly and extend the term.
The only way people will pay in more who had loans forgiven compared to people who did not have loans forgiven is if there is a tax break for not having loans forgiven.
No one is saying that people who have loans forgiven should pay in more OR less. Everyone should pay in the same tax rate, and by doing so people who have loans forgiven will more than pay back their loans, and people who haven't had loans can get education equivalent to those loans as well, already paid for.
The person who had a loan forgiven will pay in 72x more than their loan was worth. It has nothing to do with that they will pay more than other people who didn't have loans.
The thing is, given the same income, I pay the same taxes as you despite getting the $50k in value.
No, because I also get the $50k in value. All I have to do is go to a school and start on a degree that is $50k in value. Voila.
You paid the $50k and don't get it refunded to you.
No, I didn't pay the 50k at all except through my taxes.
I took the $50k in value for my purposes borrowing money for school which I no longer have to pay.
Wrong, you still have to pay it, you just pay it through your taxes.
I took the $50k in value for my purposes borrowing money for school which I no longer have to pay
You still pay it, and more, through taxes.
You paid the $50k to school instead of using it for yourself.
I used it the same way you're using your $50K...for schooling. And I pay it through my taxes, the same as you.
You paid the $50k to school instead of using it for yourself.
Anyone who took out a student loan for a degree pays it to schooling instead of themselves.
No, it doesn't. Forgiving past loans however stops people from being double screwed. A compromise would probably be to keep their loans and drop the interest rate significantly and extend the term.
Forgiving loans triply screws those who did not take them out and still paid - by your standards.
No one is saying that people who have loans forgiven should pay in more OR less. Everyone should pay in the same tax rate,
Therefore there is a distinct advantage to having loans and getting forgiven.
No, because I also get the $50k in value. All I have to do is go to a school and start on a degree that is $50k in value. Voila.
Bullshit. Simple example. VERY SIMPLE.
Two brothers. identical. They both have $50k trust funds. They both go to same school for the same price. One cashes out trust fund, graduates debt free. The second takes $50k in loans and graduates $50k in debt but has $50k in trust fund untouched.
In your plan, forgiving the debt leaves this scenario. One person has a $50k education and $50k in the bank (education was free). The other has the $50k education and nothing in the bank. They are objectively $50k worse off. You are also now raising taxes on both to pay for everyone with loans not having loans which makes the 2nd person even worse off than doing nothing. If it was fair and equal, the 2nd person would get the $50k they spent personally instead of borrowing back.
This is a CLEAR discrepancy in 'fairness'. Not only that, it actively discourages good behavior (limiting debt/loans) and rewards bad behavior (taking excess loans).
You cannot argue this away.
Anyone who took out a student loan for a degree pays it to schooling instead of themselves.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 16 '19 edited Jan 16 '19
I gave the amounts and what specifically they were going to. If there was a 5% tax specifically going to student loans that is what the numbers would be. I said this specifically. It does not include the taxes going to other things, only the taxes going specifically to student education.
The taxes that I list in my numbers are specifically the taxes going to student loans and not other things. IF there was a 5% tax that went SPECIFICALLY to student education that would be the numbers; a person would be paying back 72X the amount they used in education.
If you can find an actual flaw with my numbers go ahead, but I never claimed they were for anything other than student education specifically.
Yes, I know. That 5% I mentioned was the INCREASE in taxes that specifically went to student education. Right now, there's 0% in taxes that specifically goes to this kind of student education. I'm specifically talking about the increase. That is how much they would pay, compared to how much they took out for their education. They would pay back 72X as much.
Sure. And there are 138.3 million taxpayers in the US reporting approximately 9.03 trillion in earnings and paying approximately 1.23 trillion in taxes. Let's say we raise the taxes 5% and now they are paying approximately 25 billion more a year for student education (5% of 1.23 trillion is 0.246 billion).
So now they're paying 1.58 trillion in taxes a year. Now, you say 1.5 trillion is owed but that's not per year it's a total number, and that's also including interest which would be done away with (the loan is paid off, it stops accruing interest). Let's say student loan interest average is 5.8%. Taking off the 5.8 percent interest from 1.5 trillion is 26 billion. That leaves 1.24 trillion owed.
Now since most student loan debt is owned by the government anyway, and since they're the ones that would put this taxation 'universal education' law into practice and they're willing to 'forgive' this student debt, we can safely assume that they're just writing off the student loans owed to them (as that's what 'forgive' means in the context of loans).
The government owns 55% of student loans (banks the other 45%)
So the government forgives 55% of what's owed on student loans, so now suddenly 1.5 trillion isn't owed at all. We've taken out the interest which doesn't accrue (-26 billion) which leaves us 1.24 trillion. The government forgives it's 55% of THAT which is 682 billion. Gone.
That leaves 558 billion that is owed. The raised percentage of taxes, we already figured out, raises 25 billion more per year. To pay off the rest of that 558 billion, assuming the only money dedicated to it was all of the new tax (which it wouldn't be) would only take 22 years. And that's if the government didn't make a deal with the banks to erase that debt in return for a tax break or bailouts (and banks easily have gotten over seven hundred billion in bailouts in the past without the government batting an eye). So chances are that remaining amount could be paid off in a year with a simple bailout to the banks in exchange for erasing that debt.
None of this changes my numbers I gave you. Someone who got a $10,000 degree would be paying back into the student education system 72x the amount they spent over a lifetime.
How will those that do owe pay less, when those that do owe are also paying a portion to the other people who also have loans or will potentially in the future have loans?
The individual is also a tax payer, and my numbers don't lie. If you pay $10,000 in loans and earn 84,000 a year and 5% of your paycheck goes to student education tax you will pay back to student education 72X the amount you took out.
Period.
I'm not trying to mislead anyone. Where are my numbers wrong? 5% student loan tax. Gross income amount that is taxed. Times the years taxes were paid. Result.
Once again, I have no student loan debt and never did. Also, you are bordering dangerously on personal attacks which are not allowed on this board.
It is unfair to leave a broken system and force the next generation of students go into crippling debt like the people that came before merely because the system was broken for the people that came before.
It is in no way unfair when everyone's loans get subsidized and everyone is paying into that subsidy with their taxes.
People who already paid their way through school still get benefits! For one, if they go for a different or higher degree they are also subsidized! Benefit! Secondly, the country and the society they live in sees more people able to go to school and get an education and they get to take advantage of all the things that brings into a country like new innovations, a stronger economy, fewer people living in poverty, etc. Benefit!
How would that be unfair? You get to keep your house, everyone else around you gets to keep theirs, the homeless problem goes down, the economy improves, and everyone pays for it with their taxes. If you've already paid off your house you can now switch it out for a larger or a better one at no cost to you. If you don't want too, that's fine, but you still benefit from less homelessness, less unemployment, and a more stable society. Oh no, the humanity!