[dv_dt]

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?

[twoodfin]

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

[zarzavat]

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_meurer]

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?

[zarzavat]

I don’t accept that view of how taxation works. Taxes are levied to the extent that they are tolerated, and expenditure is made to the extent that it is demanded. Both are subject to independent political processes.

Imagine for the sake of argument that there was a bumper year for vehicle / fuel tax and the tax generated multiplies more revenue than expected. Would the money be spent on diamond encrusted highways or would it instead be spent on other areas that are more in need? Cars are taxed because they can be.

[salawat]

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.

[nickysielicki]

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.

[zarzavat]

I don’t dispute that regressive and progressive have defined meanings for taxes. Government budget allocation is not a tax, it’s not even economics but social policy! Using “regressive” in this context is a category error.

Moreover using the term “regressive” to refer to a potential government expenditure that would primarily benefit average working people, as most expenditures should do, is in my view completely absurd.