Yes, it is. And the reason why we have taxes in the first place is because we are a society. And the key thing that makes a society a society is that the people that have a strength use that strength to help the people that do not have that strength.
That is the social contract. The helping of other people is why we pay taxes.
That help comes in many forms. That help pays for police departments so that the victims of criminals have defenders to either stop the crime from happening or to capture and punish the person that committed the crime.
That pays for fire departments, for hospitals, for roads, for public services, for parks, for electricity lines to be installed, for data lines, for the internet. It pays for social programs, and it pays the salaries of the people that put the work in to make all of these things happen.
If instead of, a couple of extra bombers for our military every year, that money was used to alleviate the financial burden of student loans that were taken on by people who tried to get training to do a job, to earn more money, to then themselves pay more taxes, to contribute more to society, I’m perfectly fine with that outcome.
It’s kind of concerning that you’re not seeing the bigger picture.
I’m sure other people in your life have explained this exact same scenario to you. I don’t believe that I am unveiling new knowledge or a new viewpoint.
Why would you not want your tax money to go to help people?
because we want to help the right people. i want to help an immigrant mom who gets a degree to be a nurse.
i don’t want to help some entitled kid who got an art degree and refuses to get a job because it’s not cool for their ‘brand’ to have a job. If the loan forgiveness was contingent on this person getting a productive job then it would be different.
Incentives need to be structured and targeted to be effective. Throwing money arbitrarily at a problem and hoping for the best is not effective.
Well yes, I also agree, like anybody that’s just saying “throw away $1.6 trillion so that everyone can sing “Tra-la-La” all the way to the bank” should be put into a straight jacket and not listened to until they are heavily medicated.
But at the same time, I feel like the current system is too rigid, and too unforgiving, and too based in capitalism to actually be something that our society should continue using as-is.
I believe there should be changes in the interest structure of our student loan debts so that compound interest is not a portion of them, and that they should be charged in such a way that making 120 appropriate payments equals the debt is paid even if there is a small balance remaining.
I believe there should be release valves for the people who are so financially oppressed by the burden of their student loans that they cannot function at their optimum in society, and that using that release valve should be akin to declaring bankruptcy, it should have massive consequences that ultimately are lesser than the consequences of continuing to struggle to pay onerous student loan debt.
And finally, I believe that implementing these social resources, this restructuring of the way we handle student loans, would make America a happier place for the people like me and you who have paid off our student loans, or are successfully paying off our student loans.
We would have fewer, sad, upset, miserable people to interact with because of the student loan debt crisis, and that happier society would be our reward for the small percentage of our taxes that go towards covering over the mistakes of others. Not a blank slate, not us going into debt to help assholes, just making the world a better place for people that made stupid mistakes.
And the key thing that makes a society a society is that the people that have a strength use that strength to help the people that do not have that strength.
And this is exactly why taxpayers without college educations shouldn’t be subsidizing those who do. The lion’s share of the “strength” is in the latter category.
You write “help people”, but you specifically want to help the (educational) demographic of people who least need it, statistically.
I never can quite understand the concept of casting aspersions on a person you’re having a debate with.
Accusing me of being educationally elitist does not serve your side of the conversation.
It only increases the divide between us, and it makes me not like you as a person.
If your goal is to be disliked, you’re very, very close to your goal.
But if your goal is instead to argue, which is what my assumption was, that people who make financially bad decisions regarding their education should suffer the consequences of those decisions… Well, I mean, it’s not like I was going to like you for your stance anyway, but at least you wouldn’t be attacking me for no reason.
‘I don’t want my tax dollars paying for people who are irresponsible with their debt.’
“Honestly, why would you even care?”
Why would they care how their tax money is spent? Is that a serious question?
for some people there is no morality or moral hazard. or apparently it only applies above a certain economic class.
and yet these people rail against the immorality of billionaires and how they shouldn’t exist because they exploit people and the government.
but if you make 50K and you exploit the government and other people… well then there is nothing wrong with that!
Yes, it is. And the reason why we have taxes in the first place is because we are a society. And the key thing that makes a society a society is that the people that have a strength use that strength to help the people that do not have that strength.
That is the social contract. The helping of other people is why we pay taxes.
That help comes in many forms. That help pays for police departments so that the victims of criminals have defenders to either stop the crime from happening or to capture and punish the person that committed the crime.
That pays for fire departments, for hospitals, for roads, for public services, for parks, for electricity lines to be installed, for data lines, for the internet. It pays for social programs, and it pays the salaries of the people that put the work in to make all of these things happen.
If instead of, a couple of extra bombers for our military every year, that money was used to alleviate the financial burden of student loans that were taken on by people who tried to get training to do a job, to earn more money, to then themselves pay more taxes, to contribute more to society, I’m perfectly fine with that outcome.
It’s kind of concerning that you’re not seeing the bigger picture.
I’m sure other people in your life have explained this exact same scenario to you. I don’t believe that I am unveiling new knowledge or a new viewpoint.
Why would you not want your tax money to go to help people?
What is it about that scenario that galls you?
because we want to help the right people. i want to help an immigrant mom who gets a degree to be a nurse.
i don’t want to help some entitled kid who got an art degree and refuses to get a job because it’s not cool for their ‘brand’ to have a job. If the loan forgiveness was contingent on this person getting a productive job then it would be different.
Incentives need to be structured and targeted to be effective. Throwing money arbitrarily at a problem and hoping for the best is not effective.
Well yes, I also agree, like anybody that’s just saying “throw away $1.6 trillion so that everyone can sing “Tra-la-La” all the way to the bank” should be put into a straight jacket and not listened to until they are heavily medicated.
But at the same time, I feel like the current system is too rigid, and too unforgiving, and too based in capitalism to actually be something that our society should continue using as-is.
I believe there should be changes in the interest structure of our student loan debts so that compound interest is not a portion of them, and that they should be charged in such a way that making 120 appropriate payments equals the debt is paid even if there is a small balance remaining.
I believe there should be release valves for the people who are so financially oppressed by the burden of their student loans that they cannot function at their optimum in society, and that using that release valve should be akin to declaring bankruptcy, it should have massive consequences that ultimately are lesser than the consequences of continuing to struggle to pay onerous student loan debt.
And finally, I believe that implementing these social resources, this restructuring of the way we handle student loans, would make America a happier place for the people like me and you who have paid off our student loans, or are successfully paying off our student loans.
We would have fewer, sad, upset, miserable people to interact with because of the student loan debt crisis, and that happier society would be our reward for the small percentage of our taxes that go towards covering over the mistakes of others. Not a blank slate, not us going into debt to help assholes, just making the world a better place for people that made stupid mistakes.
And this is exactly why taxpayers without college educations shouldn’t be subsidizing those who do. The lion’s share of the “strength” is in the latter category.
You write “help people”, but you specifically want to help the (educational) demographic of people who least need it, statistically.
I never can quite understand the concept of casting aspersions on a person you’re having a debate with.
Accusing me of being educationally elitist does not serve your side of the conversation.
It only increases the divide between us, and it makes me not like you as a person.
If your goal is to be disliked, you’re very, very close to your goal.
But if your goal is instead to argue, which is what my assumption was, that people who make financially bad decisions regarding their education should suffer the consequences of those decisions… Well, I mean, it’s not like I was going to like you for your stance anyway, but at least you wouldn’t be attacking me for no reason.