undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdv_dt4y ago0 comments

The situation is an entire generation of kids from one point forward were systematically misled about the sure thing security of the benefits of taking a student loan investment vehicle in order to secure their education. When the financial sector was misled about the same regarding "secure" mortgage backed securities in 2008 they were completely bailed out - despite being the sophisticated investors that should have known better.

To allow the same for entire generations of students affects our society - causing declining birth rates, poorer health outcomes, poorer life quality. And why? To enforce fiscal discipline that we have not enforced even on sophisticated actors that systemically made a poor choice?

0 comments

twoodfin4y ago

None of that speaks to whether the proposed $50k forgiveness is a regressive policy relative to other potential uses of several hundred billion dollars.

zarzavat4y ago

You can say that about anything. Fixing streets is regressive, it only benefits people with cars. Therefore we should not fix streets.

It’s laughable to call student loan forgiveness “regressive”. The word “regressive” is supposed to be used for policies that benefit the wealthy people more than average people, not for policies that benefit average people more than low income people.

nate_meurer4y ago

You have inadvertently undermined your own argument using a perfect example. One of the most effective arguments in favor of gas taxes and road tolls is to mitigate the regressive nature of universal taxation for road building and maintenance. Because yes, "fixing the streets" is indeed a regressive tax burden for people who can't afford a car.

> not for policies that benefit average people more than low income people.

According to whom? And are you really satisfied to merely debate semantics?

1 more reply

salawat4y ago

What is the "average person" to a "low income person" if not, relatively speaking, wealthier?

You really can't have that both ways. Unless your intent is to partition by +/- orders of magnitude of relative wealth.

In that case, we're starting to get into equal protection under the law violation territory.

nickysielicki4y ago

The concept of regressive and progressive taxes are well defined and have nothing to do with the usage of “regressive” and “progressive” in a political context.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsdv_dt4y ago0 comments

0 comments

twoodfin4y ago

None of that speaks to whether the proposed $50k forgiveness is a regressive policy relative to other potential uses of several hundred billion dollars.

zarzavat4y ago

You can say that about anything. Fixing streets is regressive, it only benefits people with cars. Therefore we should not fix streets.

nate_meurer4y ago

> not for policies that benefit average people more than low income people.

According to whom? And are you really satisfied to merely debate semantics?

1 more reply

salawat4y ago

What is the "average person" to a "low income person" if not, relatively speaking, wealthier?

You really can't have that both ways. Unless your intent is to partition by +/- orders of magnitude of relative wealth.

In that case, we're starting to get into equal protection under the law violation territory.

nickysielicki4y ago

The concept of regressive and progressive taxes are well defined and have nothing to do with the usage of “regressive” and “progressive” in a political context.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse