Members banned from this thread: evince and canceled.2021.2


Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 789101112 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 178

Thread: Student Loan Debt

  1. #151 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    No, sorry. That doesn't follow. The former depends on qualified individuals succeeding - a reasonable bet. The latter depends on GDP going to record levels and staying there - wishful thinking.
    Not necessarily and irrelevant. A large number those loans went to people who did not graduate and to 8 million who are currently not making payments. But they both result in increased consumer spending. Why is spending by former college students (including cosmetologists who earn less than $20,000) more valuable than spending by workers who did not attend college? They are both spending money which must be repaid later at higher interest rates.


    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    That depends on what it is spent on.
    It doesn't matter what it is spent on. There is no way increased consumer spending of almost $3 trillion can generate taxes of that amount since income taxes on that spending is usually only 5-20%.



    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    The current debt to GDP ratio is 106% according to debtclock.org. The current debt to GDP is too high. We should be paying it down by taxing the rich and the corporations more: those who are collecting the most profits during the good economy.
    It would be easier to quit adding to the debt than by increasing taxes. You want to give one group money for consumer spending and take money away from another group that does about 60% of consumer spending. Based on your theory increased spending would result in more profits for businesses and that would result in more revenue. The wealthy already pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes, the solution isn't to tax them more. We have already seen how high corporate taxes resulted in less competitive American companies.

  2. #152 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    36,470
    Thanks
    16,665
    Thanked 20,740 Times in 14,334 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,387 Times in 1,305 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Althea,

    Hey, great idea! I like that. Free training in the trades. That's good. We should do both! Free trade training *and* free college. Will some people get through college and not find work? Of course they will. And ya know what? Some will get through the free trade training and not end up working in that field either. But that doesn't mean we should not do both.

    I don't limit/assign positive qualities only to those who hold college degrees. I never said that. I simply said that colleges produce better citizens than high schools do. Simply put, they make more money. They contribute more to the GDP. They pay more taxes. They create more jobs. Do they have better morals? That's debatable. I would suspect so, but the difference may not be very great. But they are less likely to get into trouble because at that level, more money makes life much easier with less stress. The more education one has, the less likely they are to be a smoker. They have more, so they don't want to get into trouble and risk losing what they have. And they are not as stressed by money issues and debt. That's all I meant. It's nothing about virtue. It's about statistics. From and economic point of view, and a criminal one, citizens with those qualities are preferable for a nation to have.

    I get your comment about 'Parrot on command.' That exists, but it is not accurate to describe all colleges this way.
    In the name of saving keystrokes, and time, I'll ask if you believe that a large group of college educated wealthy people who crashed the economy ten years ago should have been put in jail?

    You are ascribing values to those who have wealth via academics, in the same broad manner that you ascribe negative attributes to those who may or may not have attained wealth, but didn't attend college.

    If we're studying data, then we should mention that wealthy, typically white people avoid prison solely due to access to better legal representation.
    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

  3. #153 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    36,470
    Thanks
    16,665
    Thanked 20,740 Times in 14,334 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,387 Times in 1,305 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post










    It would be easier to quit adding to the debt than by increasing taxes. You want to give one group money for consumer spending and take money away from another group that does about 60% of consumer spending. Based on your theory increased spending would result in more profits for businesses and that would result in more revenue. The wealthy already pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes, the solution isn't to tax them more. We have already seen how high corporate taxes resulted in less competitive American companies.
    Don't you believe that low labor rates, no enviro limitations, and no healthcare spending accounts for more overseas manufacturing than paying an effective tax rate of app. 19% on profits?
    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

  4. #154 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    The ten year projections are estimates based on current spending and taxation. But the increased deficits already occurring are not speculation--it occurred in February and is continuing. Congress has to raise the debt limit soon to allow continued spending.

    It is also just plain logic--if you cut revenues by $1.5 trillion you are going to increase the debt since we both know government is not going to cut spending. The retirement of baby boomers increase the number of Social Security and Medicare recipients by 11,000 every day.
    The debt ceiling has been raised 78 times in 58 years when tax cuts weren't in effect.

    Even you admit it's a PROJECTION. Look up the term. A synonym is speculation.

    You left out a key number when it comes to SS/Medicare. How many are dying every day.

    Why are you opposed to people that earn the money getting to keep more of it? Why should those that didn't earn it get a penny of it through things like social welfare?

  5. #155 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Althea View Post
    Don't you believe that low labor rates, no enviro limitations, and no healthcare spending accounts for more overseas manufacturing than paying an effective tax rate of app. 19% on profits?
    Those factors have a lot to do with factories overseas but not bringing home the trillions of overseas profits. Low interest rates made it cheaper for companies to build new factories abroad than bring home those profits taxes at 19%-22%. We are one of the few or only country that taxes overseas profits which provides an incentive to keep money abroad. Even President Obama wanted to lower corporate taxes.

  6. #156 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Those factors have a lot to do with factories overseas but not bringing home the trillions of overseas profits. Low interest rates made it cheaper for companies to build new factories abroad than bring home those profits taxes at 19%-22%. We are one of the few or only country that taxes overseas profits which provides an incentive to keep money abroad. Even President Obama wanted to lower corporate taxes.
    If Obama truly wanted to do that, why didn't he do it?

  7. #157 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    36,470
    Thanks
    16,665
    Thanked 20,740 Times in 14,334 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,387 Times in 1,305 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Those factors have a lot to do with factories overseas but not bringing home the trillions of overseas profits. Low interest rates made it cheaper for companies to build new factories abroad than bring home those profits taxes at 19%-22%. We are one of the few or only country that taxes overseas profits which provides an incentive to keep money abroad. Even President Obama wanted to lower corporate taxes.
    We are also the only country with a massive defense budget.

    But you referenced our tax structure as keeping our corps. from being able to 'compete'. Our corporations have been drowning in cash for more than a decade. I think you're talking about American labor not being able to 'compete', for the reasons I've mentioned above. Our corporations are doing fine. Our labor force isn't. I don't think a gross reduction in corporate taxes is going to outweigh the aforementioned labor issues, if we're talking about enabling more spending by our labor force.
    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

  8. #158 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CFM View Post
    The debt ceiling has been raised 78 times in 58 years when tax cuts weren't in effect.

    Even you admit it's a PROJECTION. Look up the term. A synonym is speculation.

    You left out a key number when it comes to SS/Medicare. How many are dying every day.

    Why are you opposed to people that earn the money getting to keep more of it? Why should those that didn't earn it get a penny of it through things like social welfare?
    You keep ignoring the current increase in the deficit. The projection/speculation is for ten years. The increased deficit and drop in revenue has already happened. Yes, I am for people keeping more of their own money, but not by adding $1.5 trillion debt. We needed to cut spending to accompany the tax cut--social welfare included.

    The number of people dying everyday is not outpacing the number of baby boomers retiring. Between 2010-2030 the number of retired people collecting Social Security will almost double increasing from 38 million to 72 million with those over 65 increasing from 13% to 20% of the population.

  9. #159 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    You keep ignoring the current increase in the deficit. The projection/speculation is for ten years. The increased deficit and drop in revenue has already happened. Yes, I am for people keeping more of their own money, but not by adding $1.5 trillion debt. We needed to cut spending to accompany the tax cut--social welfare included.

    The number of people dying everyday is not outpacing the number of baby boomers retiring. Between 2010-2030 the number of retired people collecting Social Security will almost double increasing from 38 million to 72 million with those over 65 increasing from 13% to 20% of the population.
    You keep saying a projection isn't speculation.

    I have a solution for the SS issue. Let those that don't want to be a part of it and invest their money the way they see fit do so. I'm not saying do away with it for those that want it, just provide a choice.

  10. #160 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CFM View Post
    If Obama truly wanted to do that, why didn't he do it?
    I'm not sure. Maybe he didn't have the support. I don't know if he actually included that in proposed legislation. I was happy he extended the Bush tax cuts (although he criticized Bush for it).

  11. #161 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I'm not sure. Maybe he didn't have the support. I don't know if he actually included that in proposed legislation. I was happy he extended the Bush tax cuts (although he criticized Bush for it).
    Yet you're the one that said he wanted it. Maybe you're not sure that's what he actually wanted.

  12. #162 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CFM View Post
    You keep saying a projection isn't speculation.

    I have a solution for the SS issue. Let those that don't want to be a part of it and invest their money the way they see fit do so. I'm not saying do away with it for those that want it, just provide a choice.
    That would be a great idea if we had started that way. People would have a lot more money than their SS income, they could leave it to their heirs, and the government would not be stuck with those payments (the largest item in the budget).

    However, that would not be a solution to the problem--it would make it worse. SS benefits already exceed revenue and payments are being made by the $2.5 trillion surplus. We need the SS taxes from younger workers to provide today's benefits which will only cover 70% of benefits when the surplus is gone by 2037.

    Perhaps in the future there could be a transition to individual retirement accounts.

    Forget about speculation/projection. Just look at the current (February) increase in the deficit and reduced revenues. You don't appear to care about increased debt or do not want to believe it
    Last edited by Flash; 03-16-2018 at 07:32 AM.

  13. #163 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CFM View Post
    Yet you're the one that said he wanted it. Maybe you're not sure that's what he actually wanted.
    I'm sure he said he favored it.

    "Obama Proposes Lower Corporate Tax Rate"

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.ef8a5b8b6bc5

  14. #164 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I'm sure he said he favored it.

    "Obama Proposes Lower Corporate Tax Rate"

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.ef8a5b8b6bc5
    He had damn near five years to do it. Why didn't he do it? Your excuse should be interesting to read.

  15. #165 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Why is spending by former college students (including cosmetologists who earn less than $20,000) more valuable than spending by workers who did not attend college? They are both spending money which must be repaid later at higher interest rates.
    It isn't. This only focuses on the negative: the losses of tuition loan forgiveness. The gains (the success stories you are not mentioning) outweigh the losses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    It would be easier to quit adding to the debt than by increasing taxes.
    That is incorrect. If it were true it would have been done already. There are no easy spending cuts; and we are collecting insufficient revenue to keep up with spending. That's why the deficit is so large, and the debt continues to grow. President Trump made false promises which his followers are overlooking. President Trump said during the campaign that he would be able to eliminate the US debt within 8 years of being elected. Like so much of what he promised that has turned into yet another big Trump disappointment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    You want to give one group money for consumer spending and take money away from another group that does about 60% of consumer spending.
    That is incorrect. If you wish to establish that nebulous claim it would help to provide supporting evidence. The rich spend far less of their income on consumer spending than the poor, who spend nearly 100% of their income. Also, there are far more poor than rich.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Based on your theory increased spending would result in more profits for businesses and that would result in more revenue.
    Correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    The wealthy already pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes, the solution isn't to tax them more.
    Progressive taxation is a not a 'problem,' requires no 'solution.' Progressive taxation is what has made America great. We have raised the standard of living for the poor, given respect and dignity to the elderly, and cared for the needy all because of progressive taxation. There is simply no way to tax everyone at the same rate and have the great country that we currently do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    We have already seen how high corporate taxes resulted in less competitive American companies.
    Pure opinion. There is no definitive proof of your theory. No peer-reviewed scientific study agrees with your contention.

    America can't be great if we are primarily a nation of dummies. We need smart citizens, and lots of them, to compete globally.

    It is in the best interest of our future to forgive existing student loans and to institute paid tuition for K-16 financed by taxing the rich more, and by taxing big corporations more.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

Similar Threads

  1. Student Loan Debt In The US Is So High That Many Aren't Even Paying It
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-29-2017, 07:07 PM
  2. Trump Student loan plans!
    By tsuke in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-20-2016, 07:30 PM
  3. The student loan bubble is starting to burst
    By cawacko in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-05-2013, 03:04 PM
  4. Replies: 86
    Last Post: 05-16-2013, 08:41 AM
  5. student loan interest.....
    By PostmodernProphet in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-30-2012, 04:14 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •