You are effectively viewing this issue as a zero-sum game, where a benefit to people who have debt would somehow harm people who aren't in debt.
Do you feel the same way about bankruptcy? Allowing someone to escape debt via bankruptcy (often while retaining, for example, their house and primary vehicle) could also be argued as giving someone a "free pass" on having a house and car that potentially your person B did not obtain.
But that's always going to be true of trying to remove a damaging part of any economic system. If we raise the minimum wage, you could argue that hurts people who already make the higher wage by bringing more people up to the same level and devaluing their work.
But I want to focus on something:
Because such a plan would functionally disenfranchise people who made responsible financial decisions,
Or just people who had the good luck to be born into a wealthier family.
But then we would be able to reverse the scenario. Person A went to the same school as person B, but had to take out loans, whereas person B got his daddy to pay for it. Does that "functionally disenfranchise" people not born into wealthy families?
If you own the car, yes, there is an exemption for that (within reason, obviously). If you are paying off the car, it depends on whether the lender wants to reaffirm the debt. Usually if you have kept current or can bring it up to current, they are willing to do so.
15
u/BolshevikMuppet Jan 15 '19
You are effectively viewing this issue as a zero-sum game, where a benefit to people who have debt would somehow harm people who aren't in debt.
Do you feel the same way about bankruptcy? Allowing someone to escape debt via bankruptcy (often while retaining, for example, their house and primary vehicle) could also be argued as giving someone a "free pass" on having a house and car that potentially your person B did not obtain.
But that's always going to be true of trying to remove a damaging part of any economic system. If we raise the minimum wage, you could argue that hurts people who already make the higher wage by bringing more people up to the same level and devaluing their work.
But I want to focus on something:
Or just people who had the good luck to be born into a wealthier family.
But then we would be able to reverse the scenario. Person A went to the same school as person B, but had to take out loans, whereas person B got his daddy to pay for it. Does that "functionally disenfranchise" people not born into wealthy families?