You’re wrong because this isn’t a middle class tax cut. If they wanted to do a middle class tax cut, they would’ve cut taxes on the middle class. They didn’t do that. This does nothing to help older middle class people, who graduated and paid for college. This does nothing to help younger middle class people, who’ve yet to go to college. This does nothing to help people who went into the trades because they couldn’t afford college. Hell, it doesn’t even help people who went to college on private loans.
It’s like finding your husband in bed with your sister and he claims he’s just seeing how comfortable the sheets are, and when you call bullshit, he goes “Well can you prove I don’t know how comfortable the sheets are?” That’s what you’re trying here. “Well can you prove this isn’t a middle class tax cut?”
It’s bullshit for the same reason: one, your real motivation is obvious. Two, if you really just wanted to do what you claim you wanted to do, there are a dozen better ways to go about it, and we both know it.
Like, dude…you can tell me you’re just QCing the linens all you like, but we’re still divorcing.
Absolutely! Why wouldn’t I be? Why aren’t you?!
Quite! I was bitter over the TCJA, the PPP, and all rounds of stimulus. You’re talking to the guy who started a thread asking why the hell social security recipients are receiving stimulus checks during pandemic shutdowns when they are as close to having guaranteed income as exists in this world. The only reason I gave up that thread was because I figured people were emotionally raw at the moment and then was not the time to start fights on the Internet about it. But my silence was decorum, not consent.
Did I ruminate on the TCJA? Hell yes. For months. I still have the spreadsheets to prove it.
You’re mistaken in thinking only the right wing is outraged. Every poll I look at has about 20% of Democrats opposed.
A bunch of people who, by ideology, literally do not give a shit about the poor or middle class, are, all of a sudden, very concerned about middle class tax cuts.
To repeat, you cannot have a functioning growing capitalist economy if we burden people with so much debt that they cannot participate in the miracle of compound interest starting at a young age.
It is a shame that conservatives, wrapped up in their outdated, ‘you deserve to be punished for societies failures’ ideology have ignored this basic simple fact of capital appreciation.
The thing is, 2022 America is undergoing a rejection of conservative ideals similar to which we experienced in the early 1990s with the rejection of New Deal liberalism. This college debt thing is just part of the mass repudiation of Reaganomics.
@Moriarty and others are claiming that this will help the economy. If they’re right—and I’m not economically sophisticated enough to know whether they are—this does do something to help people besides just the ones who have their loans forgiven.
This older middle-class person who graduated college and paid off all the loans years ago doesn’t need this help. And I don’t have a problem with this, and helping people who are dealing with loans now. Nor am I the only such person to feel this way.
So please stop trying to use my existence to justify your outrage over something I feel is long overdue.
I didn’t say it was a tax cut. I said it was essentially a tax cut, in the sense that it is putting more cash into the bank accounts of millions of Americans who are in the middle income sphere - not poor people who are barely getting by, not rich people who have “portfolios” and make sophisticated investments. My thinking is that these people are likely to spend the extra money.
So, rather than giving it to the government in the form of loan repayments, this program seems to give it to people who are expected to spend it in the local economy.
I am no economist. Maybe this is naive thinking. I’m open to being educated on the issue, but I think this is a logical extrapolation.
(And answers the OP; yes, it is a good thing)
To be clear, I don’t think that the Biden administration is framing it as a tax cut. That’s just my interpretation. And, to be additionally clear, I don’t speak for the Biden administration. So this use of “you” seems misplaced.
We’ll, if you’re upset about the fact that the government does use money to stimulate the economy, then I guess your complaint in this thread is consistent.
However (and again with the caveat that I’m no economist), it’s my understanding that the government has an important role in keeping the economy robust, and sometimes that best occurs by injecting stimulus into the system. There may be times when it does it poorly (I, for one, don’t think that giving tax breaks to wealthy people generates economic growth), but I would be more concerned if we return to the more libertarian model of the 19th century (when economic crises were more frequent and more severe).
Anecdotal evidence of student debt cancellation stimulating a local economy:
My son is a recent college grad with a good income and a moderate amount of student loan debt. He’s eligible for $10,000 in relief. I asked him how that changes his financial outlook, and he said he’ll be able to make a down payment on a house about a year sooner than otherwise.
When I was young, probably 10 or so, my grandfather showed me a printed out spreadsheet that showed how important it is to start saving early.
I don’t think this is something he made, I think it was something he found in some magazine article or something.
It had one person who started saving $2000 a year at 20, and the other, saving at 30. I don’t remember details, but the first stopped saving around 40, and the other kept saving till retirement, and yet the first person had a much larger retirement fund.
Student debt makes it impossible to start saving early, meaning that it severely impacts the current generation’s ability to build up funds to retire on.
Do you have a cite for that? Because the last one I saw showed pretty much the entire country moving to the right.
Conservatives are becoming more conservative, liberals are moving closer to the center. The effect is most pronounced among minorities. For example, voters who described themselves as ‘liberal’ or ‘very liberal’ declined by 9 points, from 42% to 33%. But among black voters, the decline was 22 points, from 54% to 32%. Among Hispanics the decline was 18 points.
Among Democrats themselves, only white Democrats remain as liberal as they were. Black and HIspanic democrats are trending away from the left…
The biggest declines in liberal affiliation also happen in the youngest cohorts. The left is getting older, filled with white people with advanced educations. Independents and Republicans are trending more diverse, more working class, more populist.
PPP was started from the beginning as a payout to workers. The payback is the cudgel used to make sure businesses didn’t just pocket the money. You only got rebated when you could show that the money actually went to the workers. It was all about saving worker jobs. The loan forgiveness was baked into the legislation from the very beginning.
This is nothing like the student loan forgiveness, which is just a payout to the Democrat’s most strident ‘base’ in front of an election.
? The (comparatively) young? The college-educated? The under-$125K income bracket?
I’m not quite seeing how any of those categories automatically constitute a Democratic “base”.
And, y’know, calling a broadly applicable financial-relief measure a “payout” cuts both ways. A tax cut, for example, is just as much a “payout” to a subset of voters as student loan debt forgiveness is. Both of them are essentially saying “Your friendly Uncle Sam has decided to excuse you from paying this money that you would otherwise owe.”
(Cue the libertarian whining about how money that people owe to the government for taxes is somehow still their “own” money, even though a developed society intrinsically depends on tax revenue to be able to function, while money that people owe on student loans held by the government’s education department somehow isn’t.)
Nah, if that were the case, it would have been a payment to workers.
Sure, you had to show that a majority of the monies received ended up in paychecks, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t get pocketed by owners. Money is fungible.
Plenty of businesses took the money that didn’t really need it in order to stay open, they would have been paying their employees anyway.
And yet, estimates of how much actually went to employees vary, but none top 50%. Most are between 1/4 and 1/3 actually went where it was meant. Nice idea, terrible execution. For some reason, the watchdog also baked into the legislation from the beginning was removed just days after loans started going out…and no one knows why.