13 Nov 22
Since you guys like simple minded analogies so much:
Guy A is scheduled to pay $100,000 in taxes over the next ten years. The government cuts his taxes by 20% saving him $20,000.
Guy B is scheduled to pay $100,000 in student loan debt payments over the next ten years. The government decides to forgive a portion of that debt saving him $20,000.
Describe how this would have different effects on A) Government revenue and B) Overall economic activity.
13 Nov 22
@averagejoe1 saidSo...
He is telling us it doesn’t exist. If 1000 of us lived on an island and our tax vault loaned $1000 to Mott, he would pay it to XYZ College for his tuition. Marauder says when they tell him not to pay it back, no harm is done? So, the money went out, XYZ got it. Marauder says to NOT replenish the treasury, suggesting the assets in treasury have not been affected. Yet, the ...[text shortened]... is, in fact, $1000 short.
If Marauder is still here, you will not understand his explanation.
Is XYZ College on the island and staffed by islanders?
13 Nov 22
@no1marauder saidGuy A is required to pay the government a tax based on his earnings.
Since you guys like simple minded analogies so much:
Guy A is scheduled to pay $100,000 in taxes over the next ten years. The government cuts his taxes by 20% saving him $20,000.
Guy B is scheduled to pay $100,000 in student loan debt payments over the next ten years. The government decides to forgive a portion of that debt saving him $20,000.
Describe how this would have different effects on A) Government revenue and B) Overall economic activity.
Is Guy B required to pay a tax based on any portion of the 100,000 dollars loaned (or given) to him by the government?
13 Nov 22
@athousandyoung saidYes. It's a liberal arts college, and a degree in basket weaving only costs one thousand clams... plus tax.
So...
Is XYZ College on the island and staffed by islanders?
13 Nov 22
@kilroy70 saidThat's not relevant to my questions. Neither Guy A or Guy B gets taxed on the $20,000 the government's actions saved them.
Guy A is required to pay the government a tax based on his earnings.
Is Guy B required to pay a tax based on any portion of the 100,000 dollars loaned (or given) to him by the government?
13 Nov 22
@kilroy70 saidOn a primitive island such a degree is invaluable. Encouraging such education would create a powerful basket production industry which could be taxed to refill the treasury. Problem solved.
Yes. It's a liberal arts college, and a degree in basket weaving only costs one thousand clams... plus tax.
13 Nov 22
@no1marauder saidYou didn't ask any questions. You set up a scenario where it appears both Guy A and Guy B both benefited from the governments actions.
That's not relevant to my questions. Neither Guy A or Guy B gets taxed on the $20,000 the government's actions saved them.
If you take a ten dollar bill from my pocket then I'm out ten dollars. But now you're giving me back 2 dollars and calling it a benefit.
Oh happy days, lucky me!
@no1marauder saidSomebody has to pay for their education. As I have said Hazlitts 'broken window' applies directly to this situation. You need to take another step backward to get the whole picture in. You're looking at the Glazier and the window manufacturer, and the window manufacturer supplier but you're missing the baker who has to pay for the window. The "Broken Window Fallacy" was written specifically for you. And when you grasp what's happening you'll see it can be applied in many situations.
It's debt owed to the government itself.
Would you make the same argument if the government forgave $30 billion in taxes owed?
Hazlitt made it accessible, he explains it 20 times better than myself, too bad you'll never read him because he left school before you.
@no1marauder saidIt is not fair and that is obvious. What about the students that paid their debt and are seeing people get relief they didn't. I didn't like the 1.9 trillion stimulus bill either. 90% of it went to wealthy people.
The question now is it in the best interests of the country to forgive at least a portion of the debt. Until you actually get to that question, this discussion is pointless as you haven't really raised any substantive criticism of the policy except to suggest it's not "fair". That's a subjective opinion whereas the benefits of the policy are fairly obvious; it will incre ...[text shortened]... , but $30 billion a year is really an insignificant amount compared to the overall Federal spending.
Do you have a problem with government providing free education for all Americans? Are you too far to the right for that?
@soothfast saidthat's not right, regardless what they say, as it is a net sum gain of zero as these monies are not created on the printing press.
Actually, dumbass, this was one of the very arguments in favor of the student loan forgiveness program: it was projected that it would result in an infusion of money for goods and services, thereby buoying the economy, increasing tax revenue, and raising all boats.
Jesus, you are a hopeless dolt.
If this tuition forgiveness did not happen, the lending institutions will still get theirs,
and the government would simply spend those monies elsewhere. Take from one sector give to another.
so simple, even a liberal can understand it.
@wajoma saidI'm educated enough (unlike you and maybe Hazlitt) to realize that advanced education has positive externalities to society unlike a smashed window. And I've already considered the cost v. the benefits of the loan forgiveness program, so I'm not "missing the baker" as you say.
Somebody has to pay for their education. As I have said Hazlitts 'broken window' applies directly to this situation. You need to take another step backward to get the whole picture in. You're looking at the Glazier and the window manufacturer, and the window manufacturer supplier but you're missing the baker who has to pay for the window. The "Broken Window Fallacy" was wri ...[text shortened]... ins it 20 times better than myself, too bad you'll never read him because he left school before you.
What you seem to be missing is that the measure is akin to a tax cut for the middle and working class. I would think with your innate hostility to government you would think this a "good thing" but apparently your resentment of these people because they are better educated than you and Hazlitt has fogged your thinking on this.
13 Nov 22
@earl-of-trumps saidYou could make the same argument for any measure which reduces government revenue but I never hear right wingers use it when they push for tax cuts - the bulk of the benefit of Republican ones always accrues to the wealthy of course. At least this will primarily benefit the middle and working class.
that's not right, regardless what they say, as it is a net sum gain of zero as these monies are not created on the printing press.
If this tuition forgiveness did not happen, the lending institutions will still get theirs,
and the government would simply spend those monies elsewhere. Take from one sector give to another.
so simple, even a liberal can understand it.
13 Nov 22
@kilroy70 said"Describe how this would have different effects on A) Government revenue and B) Overall economic activity."
You didn't ask any questions. You set up a scenario where it appears both Guy A and Guy B both benefited from the governments actions.
If you take a ten dollar bill from my pocket then I'm out ten dollars. But now you're giving me back 2 dollars and calling it a benefit.
Oh happy days, lucky me!
Both Guy A and Guy B are ahead $20,000 more than they expected to be due to governmental action. Why do you people think it has different effects?
@metal-brain saidNo, that would be unfair to those who had to pay for their education according to the logic you just used in the first paragraph.
It is not fair and that is obvious. What about the students that paid their debt and are seeing people get relief they didn't. I didn't like the 1.9 trillion stimulus bill either. 90% of it went to wealthy people.
Do you have a problem with government providing free education for all Americans? Are you too far to the right for that?
How you can write such blatantly self-contradictory nonsense is hard to fathom.
But anyway doing Thing A doesn't prevent one from doing Things B, C, D, etc.