I'm not against it but it's a harder sell to moderate Dems. They have to pretend that sovereign debt is more concerning than consumer debt.
UBI is the only way to benefit everyone but we are just not going to get there anytime soon. Student loan forgiveness doesn’t benefit everyone but there is positive momentum to address it, it would benefit a ton of people, and most importantly it’s benefiting the 99% who actually spend their money and grow the economy. If the best argument against it is it’s not fair to all so what? No legislation positively impacts everyone. I also get the why should we bailout someone who did their major in underwater medieval studies of woman’s culture. But let’s be honest here if everyone heeded the call and only did STEM degrees there would be nowhere near enough jobs for them. It’s not a terrible thing for a society to have people study philosophy or sociology. Though yeah maybe those degrees should cheaper.
Someone who pretends the sovereign debt is a more pressing concern than consumer debt which is pretty much the mainstream look at our society. https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...-debt-isnt-the-problemprivate-debt-is/379865/
Interesting. I've seen you make all types of poor analogies and arguments against such a measure in the past. The fact is any type of forgiveness is going to help create a "lost generation" of Americans who went to school, took out substantial loans, and spent their 20/30s paying off those loans that those before them didn't have and those who will come after them won't have to do. Those people ^ will be significantly worse off then those who came before and had cheap school and those who will come after and will have forgiveness/free school. It's wholly unacceptable to say to people who fall into that category, "Oh well, sucks to suck, I guess you shouldn't have been born between 1980 and 1995." All we are talking about here is an allocation of money, former borrowers are just as deserving, if not more so, then current borrowers and should be the beneficiaries of any programs addressing the student loan crisis. I find it remarkable that you, a champion progressive on here, are so willing to just let a whole generation of Americans fall through the cracks like that.
If we can successfully sell refunding already paid off debts, then I would gladly do it but I always thought that was a line to far for even Democrats so j thought it wasn't even worthy of discussion. I just wanted something and that would be paying existing debt based on income. That's probably why you assumed that I wouldn't be for it. It's because I knew it was a non-starter for pretty much the vast majority of the party let alone the opposition.
I agree that it won't happen. That generation is going to be left behind. It's not right though. The issue needs much more awareness. Everyone is so wrapped up about current debt holders but never think about all those folks who spent their 20s/30s paying off the loans. How do their financial futures look compared to those who will never have to do that? It's not right. Spent your 20's paying off $60k?... that's conservatively $500,000.00 in an ordinary investment vehicle by the time you get to retirement. This is life changing stuff. It's a big deal but it gets absolutely zero play. Those folks aren't just "fine" - they will be massively poorer because they "did the right thing" and aggressively paid back their loans. How many folks got second jobs, sacrificed vacations/moments of their lives, suffered and scrimped and saved to pay off their loans only for all that to be made a total mockery of by blanket forgiveness? You get nothing. Of course it boils peoples blood. Give these people their money back. The person who paid the minimum or nothing and decided to do other things with that money? "Here's your $60k sir" It's a farce of the highest order.
Absolutely right. Better options would be to offer UBI or adjust the interest rate on the student loans.
I've roomed with 4 other roommates in a 2bed. And I've seen worse. https://housing.offcampus.utexas.edu/listing?property=32591 Fine, don't choose where you work, find where it's cheap and commute or split the room with bunch of people. But my math on the taxes, hourly rates, and cost is right, so the video is just there to manipulate people into thinking they have it rough. There are so many ways you can reduce cost of living, especially in TX. Regarding the hard life: it's hard to get out, but not to the point everyone is describing it to be. Again, nobody should expect people to work these types of minimum wage jobs for 40 years. Yes, people deserve a good life filled with great opportunities, but I'd rather focus on creating good jobs and developing skills that are in high-demand to make that wish come true rather than upping the wages on a federal level. I think everyone knows it will contribute to exporting the jobs or automating them, so increasing federal minimum wage to 15/hr is a stop-gap measure that will ultimately backfire.
You still don't get it. It's the relative difference. How long can society hold up without added dsocisl unrest with these trends heading this way. Your math is off because you only included federal income tax in your calculations and I've explained how the bottom 50% of wage earners have a effective rate of 24% when accounting for all levels of taxes and their effective rates sourced by CBS News and UC Berkeley economists. I provided a link. That means the median income which is around 33 grand is probably paying between 24-30% of all their income in all taxes at all levels at the actual effective rates. That person in the video localized the data as much as possible with localized rent and housing prices. Your math is bad because it ignores many other things. Jesus Christ you haven't even including health care costs into your cost of living. And you aren't addressing the main issue. The trend. How long is this trend sustainable before we get a Bolshevik revolution and behead property owners? I'm assuming you don't want to get to that place. Neither do I.
It's an option. Nobody is forcing anyone to get married. I also put get a roommate, to which people b****ed to me about as well... I'm beginning to think you and everyone else wants every individual worker should earn enough to own their own place, no matter how menial the required skills are for those jobs. That seems way more short-sighted to me than getting a damn roommate, whoever it may be.
The year were you need two full time income owners to even think about owning a home. I don't care if you are the mom or dad, having a permanent stay at home parent does wonders for child development and decreases stress levels considerably. The important point here is the relative difference. The rate of change. The trend. How long can this trend last where housing is becoming more expensive, household debt rising, healthcare costs rising while median wages barely increase to compensate for those increased cost? How long can that tend last before even more social unrest occurs eventually leading to a breaking point?
Taxes on wages for a 33K yearly salary is 14.63%, in TX. https://smartasset.com/taxes/texas-tax-calculator#EW42RZl0zU For CA, 12 is the minimum wage, and effective tax rate for that wage (25.4K/yr) is 14.42%. For 33K, 16.54%. https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-tax-calculator#WCkPXw5dta For NY, it's 15/hr, which is ~30K/yr, is taxed to 17.72%. https://smartasset.com/taxes/new-york-tax-calculator#Mq4eIBe3oT And all of this for 40-hr work-weeks. You want to include insurance, sure. Put it in and do the math and tell me what the problem is there. It's 1 layer of indirection to look up all this **** online and do the math. If you want to include people who actually do pay 30-50% on taxes to argue that they can't afford property, fine. Tell me what property they're bidding on and why it's a problem.
Thanks for individual data? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americ...s-pay-a-lower-tax-rate-than-the-middle-class/ The bottom 50% of Americans average a effective rate of 24%. And if you look at the median salary, which is 34 grand, it's safe to assume that the median tax burden for a median salary is around 24-30% when you accumulate all taxes one has to pay. Now the question is who do I trust? You or UC Berkeley economists?
I just told you, median tax burden for 34K/yr salary is not 30%. It's in the links. Fact check yourself. Stop repeating things that are just flat-out wrong.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americ...s-pay-a-lower-tax-rate-than-the-middle-class/ The average effective tax rate is 24% for the bottom 50%. The bottom 50% includes people near or at the poverty line who don't pay any type of income or property taxes that will drop that average down. Since we are speaking of the median American who is right at 50%, it's safe to say that effective rate is higher than. 24% and probably falls between 24% and 30%. These are estimations based on what what constitutes someone who just meets the threshold of someone in the "bottom 50%".
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/ Bottom 50% is 41K/yr in 2017, and they paid 11% of all federal income taxes. Assuming NYC is the worst place to live in tax-wise, 41K salary in Manhattan has effective tax rate of 22.74%. This is the worst possible case. In TX, that's 15.61% for 41K. On average, we're talking less than 20% for a 41K salary in 2017. I said from the very beginning, where do these people live and why are they there. If you want to stay in CA/NY, stay there with those taxes. If not, get out. Those are options. If you want the federal government to fix that problem for you, ... that has to be considered selfish at minimum.
