Student Loan Forgiveness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

Summit (and others) who keep arguing that most of the benefits of this go to middle and upper class folks, you're saying this graphic is totally false? Or are you just using your example of how this benefits the wrong people and extrapolating that based on reasons to mean that it must be mostly benefiting the wrong people? Or am I missing something?

---

You are asking about the Biden graphic and is it false? No. It is just intentionally obfuscating who is getting the money. Even if you want to ignore the fact that you can still get debt cancellation at 400% of median income, 31K...

That graphic tells me than 87% of the benefit goes to individual borrowers making up to 242% of the median individual income...

... it obfuscates that very little is going to those making LESS than the median income.

This was exactly SEN Bennet's (D-CO) point on failure to direct public monies to the neediest people while also failing to address the causes of the whole issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

I am telling you that median individual income is 31K for the US for 2019.

So if that graphic tells me than 87% of the benefit goes to people making up to 242% of the median income, what I'm taking away is they don't really want me to know that almost none of it is going to those making less than the median income.

---

People making less than 31k don’t really pay taxes anyways.

And probably don't have student loans or a college degree.

Those deadbeats need to stay out of beach communities.

You had your revolution! Condolences!

Barron DeJong is literally copying and pasting from the linked WH statement. Maybe check it out before spinning yourself in a huff speculating over information that is already covered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

You are asking about the Biden graphic and is it false? No. It is just intentionally obfuscating who is getting the money, even if you want to ignore the fact that you can still get debt cancellation at 400% of median income:.

Median individual income is 31K for the US for 2019.

So if that graphic tells me than 87% of the benefit goes to individual borrowers making up to 242% of the median individual income, which is exactly what it says...

... it obfuscates that very little is going to those making LESS than the median income.

This was exactly SEN Bennet's (D-CO) point on failure to direct public monies to the neediest people while also failing to address the causes of the whole issue.

---

Yeah, you're not really convincing me with that. So you're upset that people who objectively speaking do not make a lot of money and have significant student loan debt may be getting some help, because other people with student loan debt -- who also will be getting help -- need it more?

ETA: we all get that this is not perfect, and a lot more could be done. Not one person here is arguing otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldnew_guy

People making less than 31k don’t really pay taxes anyways.

---

this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NWFlow

And probably don't have student loans or a college degree.

---

and possibly this. But to the extent they do have student loan debt (a degree is irrelevant) they will also get the help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conundrum

Those deadbeats need to stay out of beach communities.

---

and this too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldnew_guy

People making less than 31k don’t really pay taxes anyways.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NWFlow

And probably don't have student loans or a college degree.

---

Exactly.

Thus my point that this is a huge amount of public money benefitting a certain subset of the the middle and upper classes with unfair distribution.

I think this would be a lot more palatable for everyone disagreeing with the concept if there was a defined funding mechanism other than general fund attached. I rarely feel bad for a lender when the loan goes to default. The lender had an opportunity to make interest and they didn't have to loan the money. But because it's just tax dollars paid for by most of us, it just doesn't feel right to many. Sure play some whataboutism with other government programs. I'm sure there are threads for those too.

Why didn't they start with writing off the accrued interest and leave the principal of the loan and see how that goes? How about going back to the educational institutions and taking it out of the coaches' paychecks or the large endowments? Maybe throw a bone to SBA defaults for those trying to start small businesses that didn't make it? Reduce the high side of earnings for the write off...$125k seems like the education worked and those should be thankful and pay back. Maybe not?

Helping people isn't a bad thing but this one with the timing and the partisan issues present, seems a little funky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

You are asking about the Biden graphic and is it false? No. It is just intentionally obfuscating who is getting the money. Even if you want to ignore the fact that you can still get debt cancellation at 400% of median income, 31K...

That graphic tells me than 87% of the benefit goes to individual borrowers making up to 242% of the median individual income...

... it obfuscates that very little is going to those making LESS than the median income.

This was exactly SEN Bennet's (D-CO) point on failure to direct public monies to the neediest people while also failing to address the causes of the whole issue.

---

I think that while you can argue about what the cut off limit should be, and whether the one that was decided upon is too high, the past generation of students didn’t develop the system that did this:

Attachment 424635

It’s the system that they were handed, and it sucks compared to how it used to be. Was it unfair for blue collar workers back in the day when college was affordable, even though the salary benefits were still large, and an even smaller percentage of the population was taking advantage of it?

Help the the students out, fix the system.

This is not a policy to help the least fortunate, and that’s OK; there are others intended to do just that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conundrum

I think this would be a lot more palatable for everyone disagreeing with the concept if there was a defined funding mechanism other than general fund attached. I rarely feel bad for a lender when the loan goes to default. The lender had an opportunity to make interest and they didn't have to loan the money. But because it's just tax dollars paid for by most of us, it just doesn't feel right to many. Sure play some whataboutism with other government programs. I'm sure there are threads for those too.

Why didn't they start with writing off the accrued interest and leave the principal of the loan and see how that goes? How about going back to the educational institutions and taking it out of the coaches' paychecks or the large endowments? Maybe throw a bone to SBA defaults for those trying to start small businesses that didn't make it? Reduce the high side of earnings for the write off...$125k seems like the education worked and those should be thankful and pay back. Maybe not?

Helping people isn't a bad thing but this one with the timing and the partisan issues present, seems a little funky.

---

It makes more sense if you consider that all the policy options here sucked, and most people were going to be pissed off regardless of which one they chose to implement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong

Help the the students out, fix the system.

---

On this we agree.

A one time handout to a poorly targeted group of current loan holders does nothing to fix the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

Exactly.

Thus my point that this is a huge amount of public money benefitting a certain subset of the the middle and upper classes with unfair distribution.

---

So, because the poorest people are less likely to have student loans, we shouldn't address student loan problems? That's weird. And as someone who worked in welfare programs, let me tell you, nobody wants to give money to the poorest people. Sure, it sucks, but I don't see what poor people who don't have student loans has to do with this, and I still think your argument here is weird. Households making under $75k are not rolling in money, middle class might even overstate it depending on where they live. But you're acting like because they're not dirt poor, they shouldn't get this benefit. Even though the benefit that is also available to the dirt poor if they have student loans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong

This is not a policy to help the least fortunate, and that’s OK; there are others intended to do just that.

---

To the extent the least fortunate have student loans, it is. But in Summit's view, the program sucks because the least fortunate don't often have student loans, I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

On this we agree.

A one time handout to a poorly targeted group of current loan holders does nothing to fix the system.

---

I do agree that we need to fix the system. But that's far more complicated and clearly requires legislation, as I understand the issues, and we all know how well the legislative process is working these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong

It makes more sense if you consider that all the policy options here sucked, and most people were going to be pissed off regardless of which one they chose to implement.

---

That's where my timing comments were going...mid-terms coming up and going to be a presidential cage match in a couple years. The dems really haven't spit out much legislation to get their more central base going and certainly haven't done anything to gain the further left support. Danno mentioned if it were votes, they would have done it so people would have the money in hand by the time they vote. I disagree-there's no money going into anybody's hands and the payments were already deferred and have been. This will probably get tied up in some lawsuits and they'll flop the roll-out. They needed something in the news cycle. Might do them more harm than good...we'll see how calculated both sides are.

I'll state my stance is their should be no debt forgiveness until the higher education system get's their houses in order. Sure, continue deferring until that happens. And the gov should probably tighten up their lending practices. If the students don't have the same access to loans, will the schools charge the same? Or how about the schools hold the notes? Maybe those could be backed by the Gov to a certain limit similar to FDIC. I bet there are any number of levers to pull to hold schools accountable.

I have no problems helping people but I do have a problem with helping to fix the same problems over and over every 10-20 years. What is happening now could potentially exacerbate tuition inflation. The Biden Admin plan doesn't seem to have much teeth to hold the colleges in check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

Exactly.

Thus my point that this is a huge amount of public money benefitting a certain subset of the the middle and upper classes with unfair distribution.

---

So what you're saying is we should just scrap all the social programs and pay everyone a universal basic income regardless of need?

I think you (Summit) were probably worth 10k of forgiveness to the people you serve as a healthcare professional in Colorado. I have no problem with that.

I see your points but policy compromises never result in perfection.

Yeah, Republicans are going to have a party with this one. Oh well.

https://twitter.com/RiegerReport/sta...LM2NP_GIQ&s=19

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uglymoney

I think you (Summit) were probably worth 10k of forgiveness to the people you serve as a healthcare professional in Colorado. I have no problem with that.

I see your points but policy compromises never result in perfection.

Yeah, Republicans are going to have a party with this one. Oh well.

https://twitter.com/RiegerReport/sta...LM2NP_GIQ&s=19

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using Tapatalk

---

Attachment 424646

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

So, because the poorest people are less likely to have student loans, we shouldn't address student loan problems? That's weird. And as someone who worked in welfare programs, let me tell you, nobody wants to give money to the poorest people. Sure, it sucks, but I don't see what poor people who don't have student loans has to do with this, and I still think your argument here is weird. Households making under $75k are not rolling in money, middle class might even overstate it depending on where they live. But you're acting like because they're not dirt poor, they shouldn't get this benefit. Even though the benefit that is also available to the dirt poor if they have student loans.

---

First, The Biden graphic was for INDIVIDUAL BORROWER INCOMES <75K. NOT households. The household could still be making anywhere up to 250K.

Second, you point out it is wrong timing vs being effective in garnering votes... I must agree that is a good point.

To respond to your main point:

If we agree we are talking about giving money to the middle and upper class with student loans, sounds like we agree on this, then why shouldn't this be done in a fairer and more considered approach instead on an executive order measured in hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars???

These are people who are benefiting from their education on which the loan was based. These people tend to have more complex finances, usually several types of debt, and I think fairness matters:
Person A hates the idea of debt and made extra payments on their student loan to get rid of their SL.
Person B took the same extra money and instead paid off their car, put money in an IRA and opened a 529 but still has their student loan.
Person C who isn't going to open their student loan until next year in the same fucked up system that caused person A & B to take out loans

Why does only person B get their debt cancelled?

If you want to help poor people with college, means test and boost grants, also forgive lower class student debt. (Bennet's points)
If you want to help people who were taken advantage of by unscrupulous colleges, regulate the colleges and forgive that debt. (Many people made this point)
If you want to address the cost of education, then reform the entire concept of nondischargable government backed student loans. (My solution)

If you want to give a stimulus to the middle and upper class, then give even tax credits instead of arbitrary handouts, which is what this mostly is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conundrum

Danno mentioned if it were votes, they would have done it so people would have the money in hand by the time they vote. I disagree-there's no money going into anybody's hands and the payments were already deferred and have been. This will probably get tied up in some lawsuits and they'll flop the roll-out. They needed something in the news cycle. Might do them more harm than good...we'll see how calculated both sides are.

---

fair point, I hadn't considered that nobody is actually paying right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

On this we agree.

A one time handout to a poorly targeted group of current loan holders does nothing to fix the system.

---

The 10K handout is the headline.

The reduction of income-based repayments to 5% and curtailing of interest while minimum payments are made are far significant patch to a fucked up system. Does it fix it? No. Does it help a fuckton of middle-income earners have 5% more of their income to put towards a house to live in or groceries on the table without racking up interest-driven debt to over their principal? Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

If we agree we are talking about giving money to the middle and upper class with student loans,

---

none of this affects upper class incomes, just stop with that line of argument...it's disingenuous
middle class incomes, yes

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...d%20of%20three.

Quote:

---

Who is middle income or middle class?
In this analysis, “middle-income” adults in 2021 are those with an annual household income that was two-thirds to double the national median income in 2020, after incomes have been adjusted for household size, or about $52,000 to $156,000 annually in 2020 dollars for a household of three. “Lower-income” adults have household incomes less than $52,000 and “upper-income” adults have household incomes greater than $156,000.

The income it takes to be middle income varies by household size, with smaller households requiring less to support the same lifestyle as larger households. The boundaries of the income tiers also vary across years with changes in the national median income. Read the methodology for more details.

The terms “middle income” and “middle class” are used interchangeably in this analysis for the sake of exposition. But being middle class can refer to more than just income, be it the level of education, the type of profession, economic security, home ownership, or one’s social and political values. Class also could simply be a matter of self-identification.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

Why does only person B get their debt cancelled?

---

I agree that seems unfair, and would likely be pretty bummed out if i were person A

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ::: :::

none of this affects upper class incomes, just stop with that line of argument...it's disingenuous
middle class incomes, yes

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...d%20of%20three.

---

Their definition for upper income is HOUSEHOLD >152K.

Debt can be cancelled for household incomes up to 250K!

I've said this affects middle and upper class. My statement is accurate and not being disingenuous at all!

“A Penn Wharton analysis found that, with $10,000 in forgiveness and the income cap, about 58 percent of the benefit would accrue to people in the bottom 60 percent of incomes, and another 28 percent for the fourth income quintile. It also found that the income cap saves a piddling $15 billion. However, Bruenig points out that the Wharton model is based on the Survey of Consumer Finances, which greatly understates the amount of student debt held by the poorest people. He estimates that the bottom quintile should receive about 20 percent of the benefit, and the bottom three-fifths about 65 percent. The $20,000 for Pell grant recipients (which wasn’t reported until now and thus hasn’t been analyzed yet) will make it even more progressive.”

https://prospect.org/education/joe-b...-a-good-start/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

Debt can be cancelled for household incomes up to 250K!

---

Can it? I haven't read enough to know so serious question. Say spouse A earns $200k and has student loans and Spouse B earns $40k and has students loans. Does both spouse A and B get the $10k or just B? Or is it how they file taxes?

You will own nothing and like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conundrum

Can it? I haven't read enough to know so serious question. Say spouse A earns $200k and has student loans and Spouse B earns $40k and has students loans. Does both spouse A and B get the $10k or just B? Or is it how they file taxes?

---

I assume it has to be based on tax filings based on the way the PR is written. I don't think anyone has seen the written rule.

Individuals with incomes up to 125K can cancel 10K (20K if they had Pell)
Married couples with incomes up to 250k combined could EACH cancel 10K (or 20K each if they had Pell)

The way the WH press release reads isn't super precise because they don't say if the income limit is gross income, AGI, MAGI, or what, whether it is 2021, 2022, or some average...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conundrum

Can it? I haven't read enough to know so serious question. Say spouse A earns $200k and has student loans and Spouse B earns $40k and has students loans. Does both spouse A and B get the $10k or just B? Or is it how they file taxes?

---

I think both, but tax code doesn’t really split it out like that for any other tax incentive so why would it be split out for this?

Why over complicate things to try and solve weird edge cases instead of making it simple and easy to implement? It would probably cost more to enforce something like that than you’d save in just paying out for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

Bob is a trustfunder who moves to a ski resort out of highschool, tends bar and cranks out an associates degree, marries a hot lifty in the same classes, and at 24 they both go and finish a bachelors degree in nursing/engineering/compsci/whatever, parental income is excluded from FAFSA, so they get pell grants and fed loans. 4 years after graduating they are both 30, making $300k combined, but with pretax dollars going to retirement, HSA, insurance, their AGI is just under 250K household limit and they qualify for 40K of debt cancellation.

Yes, that hypothetical is not the common case, but why is it a case at all?

---

This is fucking bullshit.







A hot lifty?



I’ve been skiing for 36 years and seen maybe 2 or 3.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

Their definition for upper income is HOUSEHOLD >152K.

Debt can be cancelled for household incomes up to 250K!

I've said this affects middle and upper class. I'm not being disingenuous at all!

---

I don't have the numbers, but obviously most kids coming from a truly upper class upbringing are not shackled with unpaid student loans. They just aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The AD

I don't have the numbers, but obviously most kids coming from a truly upper class upbringing are not shackled with unpaid student loans. They just aren't.

---

We aren't talking about their upbringing (except the assumption that Pell recipients didn't come from upper class families).

We are mostly talking about what student loan holders are earning for income in whatever snapshot of time this random ass rule declares (I'm wagering 2021 AGI).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

If this is purely pandering, it is dumb pandering, and not for the reason Summit thinks (ie they miscalculated politically). It's too close to the election, especially with early voting. Some people will be voting in less than 2 months. If this was pure pandering, it should have been implemented a few months ago, so voters would see the money in their pockets before they go vote.

---

Well... no money would really be going to anyone's pockets at this point anyways. Most people haven't "had" to make payments for the last few years and now they've just been told they don't "have to" make payments till 2023. AND most of them are getting $10k forgiven. I'd say pretty good timing, politically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

We aren't talking about their upbringing (except the assumption that Pell recipients didn't come from upper class families).

We are mostly talking about what student loan holders are earning for income in whatever snapshot of time this random ass rule declares (I'm wagering 2021 AGI).

---

Can submit 2020 or 2021 income. Not sure what income definition they’re using.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supermoon

I think both, but tax code doesn’t really split it out like that for any other tax incentive so why would it be split out for this?

Why over complicate things to try and solve weird edge cases instead of making it simple and easy to implement? It would probably cost more to enforce something like that than you’d save in just paying out for everyone.

---

More questions than answers I guess. I ask because this isn't a tax incentive. It's debt forgiveness.

yawn

so they got everyone worked up about this stupid ass shit and everyone is debating this like it's a big issue
meanwhile no one is paying attention to what is really going on amazing how the political/gov't machine works so well against us
the fuck ups who tune into the 24 hr news channels and spend all day jerking off on twitter and facebook can't get enough of this dick stroking

meanwhile nancy's husband was able to not show up to court this week and his lawyer pleaded guilty for him on a dwi charge in napa valley a drunk 80 year old dude driving around that's ok? take his fucking license from him please but he got a slap on the wrist and didn't have to goto court amazing how the court system is rigged so well for the wealthy and powerful but some poor fuck who gets popped for dwi is sure as hell be required to show up in court

Trae's take on this posted yet??

https://twitter.com/traecrowder/stat...22844537294850

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fastfred

yawn

so they got everyone worked up about this stupid ass shit and everyone is debating this like it's a big issue
meanwhile no one is paying attention to what is really going on amazing how the political/gov't machine works so well against us
the fuck ups who tune into the 24 hr news channels and spend all day jerking off on twitter and facebook can't get enough of this dick stroking

meanwhile nancy's husband was able to not show up to court this week and his lawyer pleaded guilty for him on a dwi charge in napa valley a drunk 80 year old dude driving around that's ok? take his fucking license from him please but he got a slap on the wrist and didn't have to goto court amazing how the court system is rigged so well for the wealthy and powerful but some poor fuck who gets popped for dwi is sure as hell be required to show up in court

---

Yes, that’s the biggest scandal involving rich and famous politicians happening right now. :rolleyes:

That’s pretty good

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

We aren't talking about their upbringing (except the assumption that Pell recipients didn't come from upper class families).

We are mostly talking about what student loan holders are earning for income in whatever snapshot of time this random ass rule declares (I'm wagering 2021 AGI).

---

Buy you're saying this will mainly affect middle and upper class individuals. I just don't think it's really going to affect upper class individuals much. Yeah, there may be the rare case where someone still has loans and is currently making bank, but that's got to be the exception.