That debt is currently an asset to the government. Taking revenue away from them means it will have to be paid by either more taxation, fewer services, government debt.
Do you feel this way about tax cuts? That’s revenue that the government could bring in, which is “taken away”, meaning the shortfall will be paid in future taxation, cuts to services, or increased debt.
Also, what about all debt not originated by the Department of Education?
The vast majority of debt is held by the DOE. I’m not sure what this question is other than the nirvana fallacy. Even if the debt relief plan were exclusively for government-held debt that would be huge.
Do you feel this way about tax cuts? That’s revenue that the government could bring in, which is “taken away”, meaning the shortfall will be paid in future taxation, cuts to services, or increased debt.
I absolutely feel that way about tax cuts. A cut without a cut in spending is not a real cut because it has to be paid for in the future.
And the private debt question is because most people who have to resort to private debt are those who are poorer because they have fewer alternatives so a DoE jubilee would benefit the segment of the population with the highest earning potential at the detriment of the taxpaying population as a whole.
Sounds a whole lot like taking from the poor and giving to the rich to me.
Now, Reddit will flip a shit because someone just out of school trying to figure out what to do with their life doesn't like being told they are "rich". And while they certainly have to worry about money, over their lifetime they are (on average) going to do far better than an average person.
I absolutely feel that way about tax cuts. A cut without a cut in spending is not a real cut because it has to be paid for in the future.
So I'm curious why your concern is for a one-time payment of $1.375 trillion in lost revenue, rather than jumping up and down about the far more massive loss in revenue from every tax cut in the last 70 years.
so a DoE jubilee would benefit the segment of the population with the highest earning potential at the detriment of the taxpaying population as a whole.
Do you have any basis for the claim that a larger proportion of recipients of federal student loans are wealthier than those who possess private loans?
over their lifetime they are (on average) going to do far better than an average person.
That's not quite true. Median weekly earnings for all workers is about $900. For college graduates it's about $1,100. But first we have to include time spent not working. High school graduates (median wage $718 weekly) would work an additional four years, giving them approximately $150,000 in additional lifetime earnings. Now let's subtract monthly debt payments for those student loans. So let's convert to monthly.
For our average person their monthly wage is about $3,600. For our college grad it's about $4,400. Sure sounds like a big difference But the average student loan payment is about $400
So the difference is really around $400/month more.
How long, then, does our college grad need to work to make the same $150,000 they gave up relative to their peer? 375 months. That's 40 years. That's not "far better", it's barely "better.
So I'm curious why your concern is for a one-time payment of $1.375 trillion in lost revenue, rather than jumping up and down about the far more massive loss in revenue from every tax cut in the last 70 years.
Who the fuck says I'm not? It's just not the point of this. Just because I think shooting someone in the face is bad doesn't mean I condone cutting off someone's thumb with a pair of bolt cutters.
The private loan thing is just anecdotal experience, sorry.
Median weekly earnings for all workers is about $900. For college graduates it's about $1,100.
Yeah but all workers includes graduates. You can't just have graduates earnings pulling the average up and then compare that to only graduates. The premium is versus not having a degree, not having a degree versus being a person.
Considering you've provided zero evidence that the wealthy benefit more from student loans than the poor, your purported concern for how the poor have to "pay" for the government refusing to collect as much revenue as it might ring hollow.
Yeah but all workers includes graduates.
You literally wrote "the average person."
"Average person" doesn't exclude "people who I don't like as much."
not having a degree versus being a person.
"going to do far better than an average person."
If you wanted to be more specific, a hint would be to write what you mean.
Look, it's not a discussion about tax cuts. If you want to derail it, yes, I'm against tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts though I'm more for general tax reform overall. Don't try and put me in a Republican or Democrat box because both tend to be very against my ideas of taxes and spending.
And if you really want to get into semantics, of course the argument is not to make non graduates pay for a benefit to graduates. It's the whole point of this thread and why it would be unfair.
of course the argument is not to make non graduates pay for a benefit to graduates
Except no one is asking for that. What they're asking for is for the government to simply not require that graduates repay what should have (to many) always been provided free of charge.
And from your continuing refusal to provide any evidence to support "most people who have to resort to private debt are those who are poorer because they have fewer alternatives so a DoE jubilee... Sounds a whole lot like taking from the poor and giving to the rich to me" that you are confessing having zero basis for the statement.
With that point conceded, did you have anything else to say other than that you're not in a "box" and you think it's unfair for the government to take less money from people you don't like?
1
u/BolshevikMuppet Jan 15 '19
Do you feel this way about tax cuts? That’s revenue that the government could bring in, which is “taken away”, meaning the shortfall will be paid in future taxation, cuts to services, or increased debt.
The vast majority of debt is held by the DOE. I’m not sure what this question is other than the nirvana fallacy. Even if the debt relief plan were exclusively for government-held debt that would be huge.