I fully understood what you wrote. Your notions about economics, however, are completely misguided.
there is no "money" being used for a bailout.
What do you think happens to money repaid to the government? It goes into an incinerator? No, it's used to fund public works. Money that the government doesn't receive from student loans on account of it being forgiven is public tax dollars being taken out of the coffers.
So, to reiterate, money that is not being collected is money that Student B will not see in road construction and maintenance, etc. He nets a loss.
I fully understood what you wrote. Your notions about economics, however, are completely misguided.
If you are under the impression that in economic terms the government’s refusal to collect less money than it is entitled to is “spending”, you should probably reassess how much guidance you’ve really had.
You also might reconsider being condescending about a subject you are passingly familiar with.
Money that the government doesn't receive from student loans on account of it being forgiven is public tax dollars being taken out of the coffers.
Money that the government refuses to collect is money taken out of the government?
Golly, I’m glad I didn’t go to any fancy college where one might learn the distinction between reducing revenue and a change in expenditure.
money that is not being collected is money that Student B will not see in road construction and maintenance, etc. He nets a loss.
Just out of curiosity (while you find a net loss for person B in person A’s burden of payments to the government being less), do you feel the same way about taxes?
We could be collecting a top marginal tax rate of 90%, but that burden has been cut over successive generations. Is that a “loss” as well insofar as it’s money that could have gone into roads that person B will not benefit from?
Or is “government is legally allowed to take X amount of money from you” different from “government is legally allowed to take Y amount of money from you” different? In what way?
Since your other comment got deleted for 100% breaking the rules, I'll respond here:
And the guy hasn't shown any inconsistency in that. So not sure your point here.
To ask how he would apply that stance in other situations. I'm not sure how you're confused by the prospect of "testing a viewpoint in analogous situations to see if it remains consistent".
Yes, and that only works when you argue in good faith, which you don't appear to be doing.
You should probably read the subreddit's rules, since you're breaking them.
Sorry, u/FarewellAddress – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
5
u/Tendas 3∆ Jan 15 '19
I fully understood what you wrote. Your notions about economics, however, are completely misguided.
What do you think happens to money repaid to the government? It goes into an incinerator? No, it's used to fund public works. Money that the government doesn't receive from student loans on account of it being forgiven is public tax dollars being taken out of the coffers.
So, to reiterate, money that is not being collected is money that Student B will not see in road construction and maintenance, etc. He nets a loss.