[echo419]

As someone with $40k in student loans remaining from my econ degree(after paying off $10k+), I'm fully in support of this. I don't know what "we" you're appealing to, but I certainly consider this "fair" in the sense that I'm more than happy to give back to my community, fellow students, and younger generations so that they don't have to struggle through the same things I did. It sounds like this position is that others be punished for/with student loans because they decided to get an education.

1. According to the article Bernie is proposing a 0.5% tax on trades, and a 1% tax on bonds. Given that ~half of all Americans invest in the stock market[0] (and given how Wall Street has acted) this doesn't seem to be a big issue in my opinion (obviously others will disagree with me).

2. I do have empathy for those who have taken on such debt, because such debt should not in aggregate be so large as to impact the economy adversely (which it has, and will continue to do via consumer spending etc...). Additionally, I know very few, if any teens who are able to understand the intricacies of debts/loans, let alone adults(I'm sure this argument will be mis-characterized).

It may sound grandstanding, but I genuinely believe that we should care more about the medical, financial, and social/political well being of others in this country, and I think this is a good first step for that.

0: https://money.cnn.com/2017/10/20/investing/trump-stock-marke...

[kenneth]

I mean, of course you support a proposal to wipe off 80% of your entire student debt. I don't think you get to call it "giving back to the community" when you're a net taker under the proposal.

[echo419]

I'm glad you seem so willing to engage in constructive/effective arguments regarding the proposal, rather than how the proposal should be framed/discussed in terms of individuals.

And I'm certainly glad you saw that my other points were reasonable and saw fit not to refute them at this point. :)

However, even under this proposal I would be a contributor as I invest in the stock market, which is the entire point of taxes/a community(it's literally giving back to the community/the cost of living in a society). So no, I would contribute my fair share, and arguably get less out(compared to others) since I've already paid $10k+, and I have no problem with that, at all.

Like I said, I'm happy to help others given the position that I'm in, which is better than some and worse than others.

[kenneth]

What I, and others, find objectionable about your post is that you frame yourself as an altruistic contributor while downplaying the fact that you have orders of magnitude more to gain from this than you contribute. Implying that a 50bp tax on your personal stock trading comes even close to the $40k amnesty windfall you stand to gain is preposterous. Implying that you are giving back and helping others even more so. You are not helping, you are being helped. You are a net taker.

[echo419]

I frame myself as a contributor, because as I stated before, I would be contributing via the same proposed methodology as anyone else, via a tax on investments. Additionally, I haven't downplayed this, me downplaying it would be me either obfuscating my debt, or not discussing it at all, I haven't hidden the fact that I'd benefit from it, I'm arguing the merits of the proposed policy and why it would be good not just for me, but for society writ large(including you my friend)(benefits include increased consumer spending, increased GDP, etc...). Furthermore, given the potential timeframe on this, and any investments I would likely make in the future, it is well within the realm of possibility that I end up paying far more than the $40k that I might gain in the short term which would seem to reasonably answer "you're a net taker argument".

As I argued in my previous post, taxes are not altruism they are a cost of living in society, it's why we have a progressive tax system the more one benefits from society, the more they pay back. I do argue however that I'm more than happy to pay this tax so that current/future generations are better off, which doesn't seem to be a point that you've refuted at all. It seems that your argument is that because you struggled, everyone else should have to as well which seems fairly draconian to me(and ignores a basic sense of fairness, depending on how we want to define fair), and also seems to ignore the potential struggles of others and any questions of why they took on such debt (but that's another question for another time). I have no idea why you keep framing this as a means of "takers" vs everyone else, when I've kept bringing this back to the more nuanced point that yes I would benefit, and yes I would also contribute. It's also strange to me that you haven't seen fit to offer an alternative or any kind of compromise, but rather dismiss the whole proposal out of hand.

I suspect that you're going to come back to the point/continue belaboring the point that "you're a net taker"(while conveniently ignoring any other points) as if somehow: A. The only point of society is for no one to benefit from it. B. The only point of society is to make a profit. Neither of which is true, because frankly everyone "takes" from society in one form or another to varying degrees, we do this because everyone should have a reasonable shot in life. It seems unreasonable to ask people who are just starting out, to be potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt in the hopes of pursing them for the rest of their lives to make money. This is a question of lives/quality of life versus money, you seem to be fairly square on the side of money which is certainly a position one can take. Generally the point of society isn't profit, but to try and make the society a better place, and sometimes that comes at a cost, or with things we disagree with(I disagree with ag subsidies, but it likely helps rural farmers somewhere, so I'm OK with that in the end).

[apexalpha]

Look I understand where you're coming from but when you gain $40k now, it would be better to say 'thank you' than 'you're welcome'.

[Simulacra]

I can't decide if you're just trolling us or if you truly believe that your duplicitous position of both "helping society" and "pay off my student loans" is valid. What if we don't pay your student loan, but pay for those who are in default? You seem to be managing quite well, so let's help those who are less fortunate than you for the common good, but since you're doing fine, you can continue to pay your student loan, and maybe an additional 5% take to help those who are less fortunate.

[Simulacra]

I paid off roughly $70k in student loans. Can I have that back? Because if you're going to support the government paying off your student loans, surely you wouldn't deny me a check from the government to reimburse me for mine? Do you think it's better to not pay back the loans and just let it default with the hopes that someone with rescue me?

[AareyBaba]

What about those middle class families who chose the financially prudent path of sending their kids to cheaper but low ranked state universities even though their kids had admission to expensive ivy league universities ? How would they feel about this proposal.