Quote:
Originally Posted by kydmb99
Is there another way that government takes our money? What happens if you don’t pay it? Of course it’s by force.. and if you raise taxes on a certain group to pay for something someone else uses how is that not an infringement on their freedom? Sure we do it now but not because it isn’t restrictive only because it’s a level of restrictiveness we’re comfortable with.
|
Force implies a connotation that I'm just not comfortable with, is more of what I'm getting at. It's constitutional and all that jazz. Moreover, if you don't pay it and it's not intentional, the IRS generally works with you and you generally aren't being thrown in jail. Now if you subvert the law, that's a separate issue and you're a criminal. But it's not the taxman coming to your door and shaking you down for money. Again, I just really don't like the phrasing - it implies something more sinister.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kydmb99
So if government hadn’t intervened just because prices were starting to go up do you think the prices would’ve escalated to where they are now or could the market have corrected it’s self/come up with more efficient alternatives? I mean you yourself have said there’s excess demand for college. Obviously excess demand creates bubbles. Where did that excess demand (and more importantly the funding for it) come from?
|
I can't really answer the first question there. I don't have enough data to really determine which was the chicken and which was the egg (between prices going up and loan availability). As far as where the demand came from - that's a mixed bag of 1) societal norms 2) needs for a more educated workforce 3) the appeal of higher paying jobs 4) entry level jobs that require more education than they have in the past (this could also be a chicken/egg thing).
Quote:
Originally Posted by kydmb99
I know it’s cool in this thread to hate on “muh free market” (not at you specifically) but I think based on all available evidence it generally works pretty
damn well.. Plus, it’s a lot cheaper for the government. Now is there some role for government to aid low income students? I’m open to that. Paying for all of it? I’m not sure it’s the best idea.
|
I'm very pro-free market* (in most cases). It's why I'm extremely pro-trade and lament that that GOP has given in to Trump and now sides more with Schumer on trade than they did with Republican leaders of the past.
But I think you can be pro-free market and still recognize that not all markets are efficient, and that some are outright broken. I think in these cases there's a bigger role for government in the short term to try to right-size the ship. That's not so they can maintain controls long term, but if they can make the market more efficient and then hand things off, that would be good.
I'm in favor of debt forgiveness for 2 core reasons. First and foremost, me and my wife would benefit enormously as she has a high amount of student debt from her doctoral program. That's just me being a good capitalist working in my own self interest. Second, and more and more importantly on a macro level, elimination of even a fraction of student loan debt would drastically improve the financial health of the most economically important generation. Millennials could be contributing to the economy at a much higher level if not for their debt burden, and while our economy is relatively healthy right now, their outlook isn't as rosie as it should be. And in downturns, they get hit harder than other generations because of that debt. Out of all the areas where we use government funds or create new government debt to boost the economy, I believe cleaning up this would have a more direct effect and to a larger degree. We're 1 year out from a $1T tax package that was largely skewed towards corporations and the rich, and it did very little for growth. I have to imagine that $1T could have been far better allocated to eliminating student loan debt.