Ending student loan forgiveness for congressional staffers? Students next?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Not to mention as the years progress and people become more and more dependent on their parents later in life(as seems to be the case now), there will be more parents paying for their kids school= cost is less of a factor= higher costs. Just a natural progression.

People act like they're forced into med school though. If you don't do a cost/benefit analysis before any major life decision like attending/not attending medical school then you are a complete and total idiot.

Members don't see this ad.
 
good idea : Everyone stop bitching about the cost of medical school, meanwhile they happily pay it. Really easy, if the cost is too much, you don't go. Then when enough people have similar thoughts to you, the schools are forced to lower tuition. This is literally the only long term sustainable solution that has the chance of working. Why would you cap what the schools can charge? If the kids are dumb enough to pay it at 100k a year or whatever tuition will be in 10 years, then isn't it worth 100k/year?

As long as my taxes don't pay for their bad mistakes, I really don't have a problem with it.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
good idea : Everyone stop bitching about the cost of medical school, meanwhile they happily pay it. Really easy, if the cost is too much, you don't go. Then when enough people have similar thoughts to you, the schools are forced to lower tuition. This is literally the only long term sustainable solution that has the chance of working. Why would you cap what the schools can charge? If the kids are dumb enough to pay it at 100k a year or whatever tuition will be in 10 years, then isn't it worth 100k/year?

except that my school raised tuition 7% every year since i've been here
it's getting more and more expensive as we learn less and less
why wouldn't we complain

i remember interviewing at another school and they straight up told us that tuition will be going up by around 9% that year. it was already one of the most expensive and lowest ranked among the places i interviewed at
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
We can't just be handing out unlimited forgiveness. It will literally bankrupt the country.
1/ How about we start making billionaires/big businesses pay the same percentage of taxes that the rest of us do? Stop giving tax breaks to billionaires. Oh and let's make it a law that if corporates move their headquarters overseas, they still have to pay taxes!

2/ There's a humongous "tax bomb" at the end of IBR/PAYE. It's a trap. I don't think anyone gets "forgiveness" by signing up for these plans. The government gets their money back (plus interests) one way or another.

3/ It's disturbing how your tax money goes to the military/war and you have no problem with that. But you want to cut aid for students.

4/ The more access people get to education, the smarter/better the country.

5/ The best way to deal with this problem is to put a cap on tuition.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
good idea : Everyone stop bitching about the cost of medical school, meanwhile they happily pay it. Really easy, if the cost is too much, you don't go. Then when enough people have similar thoughts to you, the schools are forced to lower tuition. This is literally the only long term sustainable solution that has the chance of working. Why would you cap what the schools can charge? If the kids are dumb enough to pay it at 100k a year or whatever tuition will be in 10 years, then isn't it worth 100k/year?

I agree that in a true free market for medical education, students should think carefully about paying $80k/year at a private institution when they could get the same quality of education at their 20k/year state medical school. However, due to the nature of medical school admissions, outside factors like state residency and the number of medical schools in your state can limit your options. Several public medical schools are not only the sole medical schools in their state, but they have a COA of $55k/year or more. That's still financially better than $80k/year, but it still puts students well over $200k in the hole at graduation. And that's assuming you're fortunate enough to get into your state school. Several physicians have told me they would've gone to their state school if they'd been accepted, but their only option for medical school cost substantially more than they would have paid staying in-state. I suppose there is an argument for doing whatever you have to do to go to the cheapest school possible, including changing your state residency.

tl;dr Medical education is not a true free market, which makes it difficult for consumer choices to drive down cost
 
1/ How about we start making the billionaires/big businesses pay the same percentage of taxes that the rest of us do? Oh and let's make it a law that if they move their headquarters overseas, they still have to pay taxes!

2/ There's a humongous "tax bomb" at the end of IBR/PAYE. It's a trap. I don't think anyone gets "forgiveness" by signing up for these plans. The government gets their money back (plus interests) one way for another.

3/ It's disturbing how your tax money goes to the military/war and you have no problem with that. But you want to cut aid for students.

4/ The more access people get to education, the smarter/better the country.

5/ The best way to deal with this problem is to put a cap on tuition.
He is a tea party republican... That is the mindset. Lol

I think madjack is against both from what I can tell.
 
1/ How about we start making the billionaires/big businesses pay the same percentage of taxes that the rest of us do? Stop giving tax breaks to billionaires. Oh and let's make it a law that if corporates move their headquarters overseas, they still have to pay taxes!

2/ There's a humongous "tax bomb" at the end of IBR/PAYE. It's a trap. I don't think anyone gets "forgiveness" by signing up for these plans. The government gets their money back (plus interests) one way for another.

3/ It's disturbing how your tax money goes to the military/war and you have no problem with that. But you want to cut aid for students.

4/ The more access people get to education, the smarter/better the country.

5/ The best way to deal with this problem is to put a cap on tuition.
I actually believe we should cut back on military spending and waste as well. But we need a competent military in a world that is going to increasingly be dominated by a country that doesn't give a damn about anything but its own people (China), as they would gladly take over the entire South China Sea and Taiwan if not for the potential of US military intervention. The same goes for the upcoming issues we're going to have with Russia over resources in the Arctic Circle as sea ice melts. Unfortunately, we live in a global world where resources are scarce and we're the only major military power, aside from Europe, that shows restraint in securing resources with military force (nowadays, anyway- we were all about it in the first half of the 20th century and prior).

The tax bomb exists, but it is only for a fraction of the amount that is being forgiven, and also doesn't apply to PSLF. They're not "getting their money back plus interest" when they're forgiving $1.2 million and only getting $400,000 in return (also keep in mind that these are deflated dollars, and worth much less than when the initial loan was made- a 400k tax bill in 25 years only amounts to roughly 168k today).

130311153403-tax-share-chart-1024x576.jpg

The top 10% of earners pay 70.6% of taxes while owning just under 75% of assets. How is that "not paying their fair share?" They're paying tax roughly in proportion to what they own and earn. As to corporations, we can't tax businesses that aren't headquartered in the United States- we have no claim to, and such a policy would be unprecedented and completely baseless in international law. You may as well say we should start taxing citizens of other countries because we feel like it.

Our country has the best colleges in the world for a reason- because they are funded through tuition and are largely free to do whatever the hell they deem works, rather than what the government puts a stamp on and approves. Having more people getting a college education does not necessarily lead to better outcomes- there are only so many positions that require a college education in this country. Not everyone needs to go to college, and if everyone has a college degree, it causes deflation of the value of the education itself, as having a college degree then becomes meaningless. We don't need every McDonald's worker, mechanic, barista, and exterminator walking around with a B.A.

We shouldn't cap tuition, because hard caps don't work for most private institutions that gather a larger amount of their funding through tuition instead of through research, licensing, patents, and other endeavors. If we cap the loans, however, those private institutions will lose out as good students go to schools they can actually afford, and thus will be forced to either cut their expenses or take in lower quality students, tarnishing their reputation in the process. This is one situation in which the market can actually help- tuition didn't skyrocket until loan programs became as lax as they are today. College used to be affordable, because schools knew if they charged insane tuition, no one would be able to pay it. We need to go back to that, rather than a world in which undergraduate and graduate programs know they can keep increasing tuition because people know they have access to virtually unlimited loans, particularly at the graduate level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
1/ How about we start making billionaires/big businesses pay the same percentage of taxes that the rest of us do? Stop giving tax breaks to billionaires. Oh and let's make it a law that if corporates move their headquarters overseas, they still have to pay taxes!

2/ There's a humongous "tax bomb" at the end of IBR/PAYE. It's a trap. I don't think anyone gets "forgiveness" by signing up for these plans. The government gets their money back (plus interests) one way or another.

3/ It's disturbing how your tax money goes to the military/war and you have no problem with that. But you want to cut aid for students.

4/ The more access people get to education, the smarter/better the country.

5/ The best way to deal with this problem is to put a cap on tuition.

lol at everyone of these points.

1) yeah we should totally be able to tax companies that are based out of other countries, wait what? brb lets start taxing citizens in japan b/c why not?
2) yeah paying a 40 % tax bomb is totally equal to 100 of the whole sum
3) military spending and student aid are both too large. How about instead of just blanket statements about student aid, we stop giving people money to become a PhD in pottery and incentivize people choosing employable professions? if you want to study womens studies at a 50k/yr private that's fine, but putting government money on the line that you'll ever repay it is *****ic
4) no. the world needs ditch diggers too. If everyone has a PhD, PhDs become useless
5) again, why is tuition some magic exemption, might as well just institute full on governmental price control on all goods

god dang you drink a lot of kool aid
 
As long as my taxes don't pay for their bad mistakes, I really don't have a problem with it.

funny how no one said this about the dozen or so wars (sorry engagements) that we start every decade that cost literally tens of trillions of dollars.

But if it's blacks and hispanics (sorry, "urban") buying "steak and lobster" (when it's really beef jerky and canned tuna), everyone gets into an uproar.

lol at everyone of these points.

1) yeah we should totally be able to tax companies that are based out of other countries, wait what? brb lets start taxing citizens in japan b/c why not?

You obviously don't understand the logic behind it. Only the HQ goes overseas, which allows the company to claim the profits as being produced overseas, even if 100% of revenue comes from US customers. This way, they can reap the profits here while avoiding taxes. You'd be wise to notice that these companies never relocate HQs where they do major operations; it's always some ****hole Eastern European country with lax tax laws. It's not taxing overseas companies on overseas revenue, it's taxing American companies who are too cowardly and too unpatriotic to pay taxes on profits earned in the US.

3) military spending and student aid are both too large. How about instead of just blanket statements about student aid, we stop giving people money to become a PhD in pottery and incentivize people choosing employable professions? if you want to study womens studies at a 50k/yr private that's fine, but putting government money on the line that you'll ever repay it is *****ic

The scale is incredibly different. This is like complaining about a little bit of sand in your shoes when you live in the middle of the Sahara desert. A single B-2 bomber costs $2 billion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
@Mad Jack The top 10% share of income is over 70%, so it makes sense that they pay 70% income tax...

yeah I mean we all know the way you get prosperity is by de-incentivizing prosperity

you want to make money? well we're going to penalize you for it. who knew that rewarding failure and penalizing success would encourage failure?
 
lol at everyone of these points.

1) yeah we should totally be able to tax companies that are based out of other countries, wait what? brb lets start taxing citizens in japan b/c why not?
2) yeah paying a 40 % tax bomb is totally equal to 100 of the whole sum
3) military spending and student aid are both too large. How about instead of just blanket statements about student aid, we stop giving people money to become a PhD in pottery and incentivize people choosing employable professions? if you want to study womens studies at a 50k/yr private that's fine, but putting government money on the line that you'll ever repay it is *****ic
4) no. the world needs ditch diggers too. If everyone has a PhD, PhDs become useless
5) again, why is tuition some magic exemption, might as well just institute full on governmental price control on all goods

god dang you drink a lot of kool aid

First of all, please inform yourself on "tax bomb" because you know nothing about how it works. http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/ibr-is-a-trap.1097946/

Second, US citizens are already subject to US taxes, even when they live overseas (the US is the only country taxing its overseas citizens);
BUT only big corporations can evade taxes, because: corporate power + stupid law/loopholes.

I can't stop laughing reading your post because YOU KNOW NOTHING, and i'm not gonna waste my time educating you on various topics. :laugh:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
yeah I mean we all know the way you get prosperity is by de-incentivizing prosperity

you want to make money? well we're going to penalize you for it. who knew that rewarding failure and penalizing success would encourage failure?
You seem to think or believe that everything is black and white. Come one! You are a med student; you suppose be smarter than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
@Mad Jack The top 10% share of income is over 70%, so it makes sense that they pay 70% income tax...
That's actually wrong though.

http://www.epi.org/publication/unions-decline-and-the-rise-of-the-top-10-percents-share-of-income/
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/09/11/2602151/record-income-inequality/
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data

"In 2011, the top 10 percent of taxpayers (with AGIs above $120,000) accounted for 45.4 percent of all AGI and 68.3 percent of all income taxes paid. Taxpayers in the top 5 percent accounted for 33.9 percent of all AGI and 56.5 percent of all income taxes paid. The top 1 percent of all taxpayers accounted for 18.7 percent of all AGI and 35.1 percent of all income taxes paid."
 
Huge demand for doctors huge demand for medical education high price of medical education spells to me use tax dollars to quickly create many more public medical schools as fast as possible while still maintaining quality. Tuition would decrease. Due to increased supply, salary of primary care physicians might go down because there would be more of them. Specialty residency would still be high paid and competitive.
 
That's actually wrong though.

http://www.epi.org/publication/unions-decline-and-the-rise-of-the-top-10-percents-share-of-income/
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/09/11/2602151/record-income-inequality/
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data

"In 2011, the top 10 percent of taxpayers (with AGIs above $120,000) accounted for 45.4 percent of all AGI and 68.3 percent of all income taxes paid. Taxpayers in the top 5 percent accounted for 33.9 percent of all AGI and 56.5 percent of all income taxes paid. The top 1 percent of all taxpayers accounted for 18.7 percent of all AGI and 35.1 percent of all income taxes paid."

shocking, when you earn more, you pay more.

This entire discussion is backwards. Instead of talking about how those better off can contribute more to our country's prosperity, we are talking about ways to **** over the majority of Americans so that those few with abundance can have even more abundance.

For a Christian nation, the US is decidedly anti-Christian in practice. Remember the parable of the widow, in which the donation of two mites means more to God than all the gifts of the rich. It's not the absolute amount but the relative amount that truly matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
lol at everyone of these points.

1) yeah we should totally be able to tax companies that are based out of other countries, wait what? brb lets start taxing citizens in japan b/c why not?
2) yeah paying a 40 % tax bomb is totally equal to 100 of the whole sum
3) military spending and student aid are both too large. How about instead of just blanket statements about student aid, we stop giving people money to become a PhD in pottery and incentivize people choosing employable professions? if you want to study womens studies at a 50k/yr private that's fine, but putting government money on the line that you'll ever repay it is *****ic
4) no. the world needs ditch diggers too. If everyone has a PhD, PhDs become useless
5) again, why is tuition some magic exemption, might as well just institute full on governmental price control on all goods

god dang you drink a lot of kool aid


.........do you read your posts before sending?



Are mommy and daddy paying for your whole coa as well?

This is primarily in reference to number 5 you addressed. You jump to a massive generalization so hard without even acknowledging possible error in thought
 
:laugh: first of all, please inform yourself on "tax bomb" because you know nothing about how it works.

Second, US citizens are already subject to US taxes, even when they live overseas; only big corporations can evade taxes, because: corporate power + stupid law/loopholes.

I can't stop laughing reading your post because YOU KNOW NOTHING, and i'm not gonna waste my time educating you on various topics. :laugh:
I know how it works. You pay the tax on the amount forgiven as if it were income. That amounts to paying roughly 30-40% of the total amount, which is far from "the whole amount," particularly when you factor in inflation. There's a great forgiveness calculator elsewhere on the web that can show you what your forgiveness amount will end up costing you in present dollars.

As to corporations, by leaving the US, they are no longer US-taxable entities in the same way that US citizens that renounce their citizenship are no longer taxable. The reason for not taxing multinational corporations' global income is because they're multinational. If we tax their global income, every single one of them will vacate the United States. There is no downside to their doing so, at all, whatsoever, and a whole hell of a lot to gain. We need to have favorable tax treatment if we want to keep such corporations around at all, as they have many options in a global world.

And I know plenty. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean that I know nothing, it means that I disagree with you. My assessment of the facts leads me to a different conclusion than your own. I'm pretty well versed in the unintended economic effects that were brought about by both the federally-backed loan programs and Medicare, both of which caused spending to skyrocket because schools, physicians, and hospitals realized they could charge far more since the government was providing an easy way for them to get paid, and there was no longer an incentive to hold prices down to a reasonable level that people could afford.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I know how it works. You pay the tax on the amount forgiven as if it were income. That amounts to paying roughly 30-40% of the total amount, which is far from "the whole amount," particularly when you factor in inflation.
you pay 10-15% of your salary for 20-30 years under these plans (IBR/PAYE). THEN you'll have to pay 30-50% on taxes on the remaining amount as well. The remaining amount (plus interest) that accumulate over 20-30 years can easily be in the $400-900k range.

I already calculated for myself: These plans would cost me a lot more $$$ in the long run... (calculator https://studentloans.gov/myDirectLoan/mobile/repayment/repaymentEstimator.action)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
First of all, please inform yourself on "tax bomb" because you know nothing about how it works. http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/ibr-is-a-trap.1097946/

Second, US citizens are already subject to US taxes, even when they live overseas (the US is the only country taxing its overseas citizens);
BUT only big corporations can evade taxes, because: corporate power + stupid law/loopholes.

I can't stop laughing reading your post because YOU KNOW NOTHING, and i'm not gonna waste my time educating you on various topics. :laugh:
I think we have become brainwashed... Welfare is probably 2-3% of our budget and defense is 0ver 25% and you will hear most people talk about cutting welfare as if that will make a big impact in our budget... Simple math tell me that cutting defense will make a greater impact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
shocking, when you earn more, you pay more.

This entire discussion is backwards. Instead of talking about how those better off can contribute more to our country's prosperity, we are talking about ways to **** over the majority of Americans so that those few with abundance can have even more abundance.

For a Christian nation, the US is decidedly anti-Christian in practice. Remember the parable of the widow, in which the donation of two mites means more to God than all the gifts of the rich. It's not the absolute amount but the relative amount that truly matters.
I'm talking about how to help Americans by making sure that schools don't have the incentive to keep charging more and more tuition without a thought of consequence, as they know students can get the money, so there's no reason for them to reign in costs. The way that funding is abused by colleges is ridiculous and unsustainable. They're not just going to stop charing more because we say please- they need to know that people actually can't afford the tuition (because they actually can't- even at current, they can merely secure money for the tuition but cannot afford to pay it back).

Also keep in mind that this affects the minority of Americans, not the majority:
icJ2R.UzEOwA.jpg

I get that you're probably quite upset because you've chosen to enter a field that won't set you up to pay your loans back. But you made that choice- no one is forcing you to go to school. I'm also going to be 400k in debt myself, but I don't want the taxpayer having to foot that bill- it won't be easy, but I can and will pay it back. I don't have some magical right to a medical degree, I have to pay for it. And with the way that the loans are set up, they need to charge the rate of interest they charge to ensure that the program remains solvent- the interest paid by graduate students barely manages to offset their losses from undergraduate defaults. It's a fairly well balanced equation. But if they just went around forgiving everyone's debt, it would cost 1.2 trillion dollars. To put that in perspective, that's the same amount the entire world combined spends on military spending each year. It's a metric **** ton of money, and it has to come from somewhere. The government loaned that cash out, expecting that it be paid back, with interest to cover inflation, the defaults of other students, and financial aid operating expenses. If that money stops coming in due to forgiveness, the taxpayers will have to be the ones stepping in to loan the next round of cash to fresh undergrads and graduate students. The money that is disbursed to your school each year isn't magical fluff that comes from nowhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
shocking, when you earn more, you pay more.

This entire discussion is backwards. Instead of talking about how those better off can contribute more to our country's prosperity, we are talking about ways to **** over the majority of Americans so that those few with abundance can have even more abundance.

For a Christian nation, the US is decidedly anti-Christian in practice. Remember the parable of the widow, in which the donation of two mites means more to God than all the gifts of the rich. It's not the absolute amount but the relative amount that truly matters.
As an addendum, my major concern is minimizing federal spending to keep the country solvent. We're 18.2 trillion dollars in debt as a country, and need to make cuts everywhere, as well as increase taxes across the board, if we're going to get it paid off before we end up in a period of stagnation due to a high worker:beneficiary ratio (care of demographics) and a debt that has reached a point that taxes barely cover the interest. This is critical to the survival of our country over the long term- I'm talking centuries. Each taxpayer currently has a share of $154,162 and growing that needs to be paid back someday, and that money isn't going to come from nowhere.
 
1/ How about we start making billionaires/big businesses pay the same percentage of taxes that the rest of us do? Stop giving tax breaks to billionaires. Oh and let's make it a law that if corporates move their headquarters overseas, they still have to pay taxes!

2/ There's a humongous "tax bomb" at the end of IBR/PAYE. It's a trap. I don't think anyone gets "forgiveness" by signing up for these plans. The government gets their money back (plus interests) one way or another.

3/ It's disturbing how your tax money goes to the military/war and you have no problem with that. But you want to cut aid for students.

4/ The more access people get to education, the smarter/better the country.

5/ The best way to deal with this problem is to put a cap on tuition.

While this is veering into a political debate, some of your points are outright wrong. It's ok, though - I forgive you. It's the narrative put forth by left-leaning/"progressive" media a la HuffPo irrespective of reality.

1) The US has the highest corporate income tax rate (both nominal and effective) compared to any other country in the OECD: http://stats.oecd.org//Index.aspx?QueryId=58204.

2) Not all forgiven loans are taxed. Programs like IBR/PAYE are, but PSLF, for example, does not tax the forgiven loan amounts. This is typically the program most medical students are looking at when looking at loan forgiveness. Regardless, I don't really see a problem with taxing forgiven loans. In principle it's no different than receiving a large check from, say, your employer to pay off your loans as an employment benefit. That it comes from the government or that you don't actually receive a check is somewhat irrelevant.

4) [citation/explanation needed]

5) [citation/explanation needed]
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
@Mad Jack You can not advocate for cut to be made while saying we should not cut defense when they use a 1/4 of our budget...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
As an addendum, my major concern is minimizing federal spending to keep the country solvent. We're 18.2 trillion dollars in debt as a country, and need to make cuts everywhere, as well as increase taxes across the board, if we're going to get it paid off before we end up in a period of stagnation due to a high worker:beneficiary ratio (care of demographics) and a debt that has reached a point that taxes barely cover the interest. This is critical to the survival of our country over the long term- I'm talking centuries. Each taxpayer currently has a share of $154,162 and growing that needs to be paid back someday, and that money isn't going to come from nowhere.

That doesn't account for today's inflation and borrowing rates. Right now, the government is being paid to issue bonds, rendering any discussion of debt meaningless. Inflation is around 2%, the 10-year bond is 1.9%. The government is literally making money every time it issues a bond because rates are so low. This is the time to invest, not be frugal. It's like turning down $100 when you can instantly turn it around for $101 for zero risk. All because you "don't want to be in debt."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
@Mad Jack You can not advocate for cut to be make while saying we should not cut defense when they use a 1/4 of our budget...
I'm not saying we shouldn't make defense spending cuts. I'm saying we need a capable military. There's plenty of room for cuts (such as eliminating the bull**** contracting process that causes massive inflation of military spending). Far larger than our military expenses are Social Security and Medicare spending, which not only are substantially larger than military spending, but also are growing at a much faster rate. That's where we really need to change some things.
 
I know how it works. You pay the tax on the amount forgiven as if it were income. That amounts to paying roughly 30-40% of the total amount, which is far from "the whole amount," particularly when you factor in inflation. There's a great forgiveness calculator elsewhere on the web that can show you what your forgiveness amount will end up costing you in present dollars.

As to corporations, by leaving the US, they are no longer US-taxable entities in the same way that US citizens that renounce their citizenship are no longer taxable. The reason for not taxing multinational corporations' global income is because they're multinational. If we tax their global income, every single one of them will vacate the United States. There is no downside to their doing so, at all, whatsoever, and a whole hell of a lot to gain. We need to have favorable tax treatment if we want to keep such corporations around at all, as they have many options in a global world.

And I know plenty. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean that I know nothing, it means that I disagree with you. My assessment of the facts leads me to a different conclusion than your own. I'm pretty well versed in the unintended economic effects that were brought about by both the federally-backed loan programs and Medicare, both of which caused spending to skyrocket because schools, physicians, and hospitals realized they could charge far more since the government was providing an easy way for them to get paid, and there was no longer an incentive to hold prices down to a reasonable level that people could afford.

Except it's more like renouncing your citizenship, then reaping all the benefits of citizenship without paying your dues. Many of these companies are multi-national in name only; they still derive >70% of their revenue from US sources.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
shocking, when you earn more, you pay more.

This entire discussion is backwards. Instead of talking about how those better off can contribute more to our country's prosperity, we are talking about ways to **** over the majority of Americans so that those few with abundance can have even more abundance.

For a Christian nation, the US is decidedly anti-Christian in practice. Remember the parable of the widow, in which the donation of two mites means more to God than all the gifts of the rich. It's not the absolute amount but the relative amount that truly matters.

Completely agree. The whole culture around success and wealth in the US is backward. It is no longer a question of, "what can I do to achieve that level of success?" Instead, it's become a question of, "how can I get things from people that have more than me?" It's a subtle shift but reveals an important change in how the population as a whole approaches ambition, working hard, and success.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
That doesn't account for today's inflation and borrowing rates. Right now, the government is being paid to issue bonds, rendering any discussion of debt meaningless. Inflation is around 2%, the 10-year bond is 1.9%. The government is literally making money every time it issues a bond because rates are so low. This is the time to invest, not be frugal. It's like turning down $100 when you can instantly turn it around for $101 for zero risk. All because you "don't want to be in debt."
The problem with that is that we aren't keeping the money we're issuing bonds for. It's like you're saying, "Let's say you can borrow 100,000 at an interest rate that is lower than inflation. You borrow $100,000, spend it all on buying ****, and technically you bought $101,000 worth of stuff while only taking out a loan for $100,000." You still don't have the money to pay the debt back. You've got $100,000 worth of stuff you paid for, and no means of paying back the loan, however favorable the terms.
 
The problem with that is that we aren't keeping the money we're issuing bonds for. It's like you're saying, "Let's say you can borrow 100,000 at an interest rate that is lower than inflation. You borrow $100,000, spend it all on buying ****, and technically you bought $101,000 worth of stuff while only taking out a loan for $100,000." You still don't have the money to pay the debt back. You've got $100,000 worth of stuff you paid for, and no means of paying back the loan, however favorable the terms.

Sure, but with respect to government spending (done right), that $101,000 worth of stuff enables $500,000 worth of economic activity. For example, NASA has returned something like $200 for every dollar invested through new innovations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Page 7: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41743.pdf. Google is your friend. That report states that the effective US corporate tax rate is pretty inline with other OECD countries.
You are contradicting your previous post... You were saying it was higher when it is not... That study say 'it is in line' with other OECD countries. You previous stuff was just nominal tax rate...
 
You are contradicting your previous post... You were saying it was higher when it is not... That study say 'it is in line' with other OECD countries

Point is, the narrative of "zomg corporate tax rates are so low in the US those greedy corporations" contradicts reality. You're right in that the effective tax rate may not be the highest in the OECD, but it certainly isn't the lowest or even outside the norm.

Don't miss the forest for the trees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
While this is veering into a political debate, some of your points are outright wrong. It's ok, though - I forgive you. It's the narrative put forth by left-leaning/"progressive" media a la HuffPo irrespective of reality.

1) The US has the highest corporate income tax rate (both nominal and effective) compared to any other country in the OECD: http://stats.oecd.org//Index.aspx?QueryId=58204.

2) Not all forgiven loans are taxed. Programs like IBR/PAYE are, but PSLF, for example, does not tax the forgiven loan amounts. This is typically the program most medical students are looking at when looking at loan forgiveness. Regardless, I don't really see a problem with taxing forgiven loans. In principle it's no different than receiving a large check from, say, your employer to pay off your loans as an employment benefit. That it comes from the government or that you don't actually receive a check is somewhat irrelevant.

4) [citation/explanation needed]

5) [citation/explanation needed]
1) yes, what good is tax law when it's full of loopholes? Scroll down to "who's paying taxes and who's not", look at the table and see which corporates don't pay taxes:
http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/sorrystateofcorptaxes.php
also http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...businesses-dont-pay-the-corporate-income-tax/

2) if you tax "forgiven" amount, then nothing is "forgiven". What hypocritical plans (IBR/PAYE) that make you pay MORE in the long term.

4) isn't this intuitive? if you need convincing, please compare the US to Germany and Finland - 2 countries where education is not only free for their citizens but also for foreigners. which country is more successful/sustainable? http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-are-finlands-schools-successful-49859555/?no-ist . Also, US students perform worse in international competitions.

5) Proposals don't need citation. I don't see how education can be sustainable here unless tuition dwindles. if you have a better idea, do tell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Completely agree. The whole culture around success and wealth in the US is backward. It is no longer a question of, "what can I do to achieve that level of success?" Instead, it's become a question of, "how can I get things from people that have more than me?" It's a subtle shift but reveals an important change in how the population as a whole approaches ambition, working hard, and success.
I think your point stands in opposition to his. He was saying that we should be taking more money from the wealthy (who can "afford it") rather than making the majority of Americans pay for services that they, themselves, have chosen to use. Hell, even if we taxed every dollar a person made over $1,000,000, it would only amount to an additional $616 billion in tax revenue, which would close the budget deficit and allow us to chip away at a mere 116 billion of our 18.2 trillion dollars of debt.
Sure, but with respect to government spending (done right), that $101,000 worth of stuff enables $500,000 worth of economic activity. For example, NASA has returned something like $200 for every dollar invested through new innovations.
We should be using government spending on programs that stimulate economic development- NASA, infrastructure, research. Student loans, however, sap economic development, as they functionally substantially limit consumption while providing no added stimulus. That's a big reason I'm a hater of loan forgiveness- it's an overall drain on the economy- but okay with things like SNAP, which provide economic benefit and improve QOL with very little cost overall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Point is, the narrative of "zomg corporate tax rates are so low in the US those greedy corporations" contradicts reality. You're right in that the effective tax rate may not be the highest in the OECD, but it certainly isn't the lowest or even outside the norm.

Don't miss the forest for the trees.
I am not trying to argue with you; I was merely pointing out that effective tax rate here for US businesses is not the highest in the world as most politicians would let you believe. BIG corporations and wealthy people are NOT saints in this whole budget situation we are in now.
 
1) oh yes, what good is tax law when it's full of loopholes? Scroll down to "who's paying taxes and who's not", look at the table and see which corporates don't pay taxes:
http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/sorrystateofcorptaxes.php
also http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...businesses-dont-pay-the-corporate-income-tax/

2) if you tax "forgiven" amount, then nothing is "forgiven". What hypocritical plans (IBR/PAYE) that make you pay MORE in the long term.

4) isn't this intuitive? if you need convincing, please compare the US to Germany and Finland - 2 countries where education is not only free for their citizens but also for foreigners. which country is more successful/sustainable? http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-are-finlands-schools-successful-49859555/?no-ist . Also, US students perform worse in international competitions.

5) Proposals don't need citation. I don't see how education can be sustainable here unless tuition dwindles. if you have a better idea, do tell.

1) Yeah, I'm not going to open or trust a report titled "sorry state of corp taxes." I provided OECD data as well as nonpartisan data. Even accounting for loopholes, the effective tax rate is what it is. You can choose to believe it or not, but that doesn't change reality.

2) ...ok. Not even going to debate this point because if you see paying 35% in taxes on a loan balance (or whatever tax bracket you might find yourself in as a result of forgiveness) the same as paying 100% of the loan balance as equivalent, there is no discussion to be had.

4) No, this isn't intuitive actually - and that source offers nothing to the discussion. The observation that students "perform worse in international competitions" - even if we do accept that as a valid surrogate of educational quality - has nothing to do with the cost of education and everything to do with the quality of education. Charging $0 or $200,000 for poor quality education isn't going to change that. In addition, this ignores the reality that there are jobs in this world that do not require a high school education much less a college education. In order for our society to function, we need janitors, garbage collectors, fast food workers, manual laborers, etc. etc.. Giving everyone access to education is not going to change that reality nor will it change the fact that people in those jobs will be paid a lower wage.

5) Your proposal has no thought. Who's going to regulate tuition levels? What is an "appropriate" tuition level? What happens if schools don't abide by them? What does it mean for schools to limit budgets? I don't disagree that school costs as obscene and non-sustainable, but saying "regulate tuition" with no other thought about how this would work in practice isn't helpful. Similarly, I don't like pollution caused by motor vehicles. My proposal for this is to create a car powered by "good vibes." Let's get on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The less of my money going to educate some kids in Women's Studies or White Privilege 101, the better. I hope the program gets cut as soon as possible. Students going into fields for which the increased income is worth the cost of eduction will still be able to pay off their loans.

literally one cruise missile launched would pay for the tuition of an entire medical school class.

we have no problem launching hundreds of cruise missiles a year at low-yield targets all over the world.

this **** is the hunger games by forcing us to concentrate on scraps, which are meaningless in terms of the overall budget, while the biggest wasters in government have a free hand to continue their waste.
haha what numbers are you looking at?
Tuition for my class will be about 45 million.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Completely agree. The whole culture around success and wealth in the US is backward. It is no longer a question of, "what can I do to achieve that level of success?" Instead, it's become a question of, "how can I get things from people that have more than me?" It's a subtle shift but reveals an important change in how the population as a whole approaches ambition, working hard, and success.
That is just anecdote... That is not the kind of stuff one should bring in an intelligent discussion. This discussion is not: Shawn Hannity vs Keith Olbermann.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I am not trying to argue with you; I was merely pointing out that effective tax rate here for US businesses is not the highest in the world as most politicians would let you believe. BIG corporations and wealthy people are NOT saints in this whole budget situation we are in now.

And, similarly, US corporations compared to other OECD corporations aren't tax cheat leaches that Elizabeth Warren et al would like you to believe. Reality lies somewhere in the middle.
 
I'm not saying we shouldn't make defense spending cuts. I'm saying we need a capable military. There's plenty of room for cuts (such as eliminating the bull**** contracting process that causes massive inflation of military spending). Far larger than our military expenses are Social Security and Medicare spending, which not only are substantially larger than military spending, but also are growing at a much faster rate. That's where we really need to change some things.
wow, you aren't seriously proposing cutting SOCIAL SECURITY and MEDICARE, are you? if these are cut, I'll move to Europe where I can have universal healthcare, generous pension, free tuition, paid childcare and maternity+paternity leave, seriously! (and European doctors do make comparable salaries to American counterparts, mind you).

having a capable military makes sense, but why do we need to spend billions of dollars interfering in other countries' politics? i don't support wasting that $ while it could be used to help our citizens - unless those countries become a real threat to us, there's no reason to interfere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
2) ...ok. Not even going to debate this point because if you see paying 35% in taxes on a loan balance (or whatever tax bracket you might find yourself in as a result of forgiveness) the same as paying 100% of the loan balance as equivalent, there is no discussion to be had.
stop joking me. use the federal calculator (https://studentloans.gov/myDirectLoan/mobile/repayment/repaymentEstimator.action): suppose I owe $200k (which I will, which is still less than many people owe) and earn $100k as a pharmacist, I will end up paying $300k under PAYE (and more under IBR). If I earn more, I will end up paying EVEN MORE than I owe. Where's the "forgiveness"?
 
1) yes, what good is tax law when it's full of loopholes? Scroll down to "who's paying taxes and who's not", look at the table and see which corporates don't pay taxes:
http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/sorrystateofcorptaxes.php
also http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...businesses-dont-pay-the-corporate-income-tax/

2) if you tax "forgiven" amount, then nothing is "forgiven". What hypocritical plans (IBR/PAYE) that make you pay MORE in the long term.

4) isn't this intuitive? if you need convincing, please compare the US to Germany and Finland - 2 countries where education is not only free for their citizens but also for foreigners. which country is more successful/sustainable? http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-are-finlands-schools-successful-49859555/?no-ist . Also, US students perform worse in international competitions.

5) Proposals don't need citation. I don't see how education can be sustainable here unless tuition dwindles. if you have a better idea, do tell.
1) We should close loopholes, I don't think anyone is advocating for them. I'm just also not advocating that we create a situation in which corporations are incentivized to completely dissociate from the United States. As it stands, corporations that leave the United States are still taxed on Stateside operations, but not global profits on activity occurring outside of the USA. I think that is a fair compromise, and perfectly reasonable for a corporation to pursue. Just because Burger King moved their headquarters overseas doesn't mean that each restaurant suddenly stops paying taxes- it's just that overseas operations are no longer subject to US law, which is standard practice for every nation in the world that isn't us.

2) You only pay more in the long term if you have ridiculously high loan balances and low income (i.e. you borrowed irresponsibly). Don't borrow irresponsibly for an education, just as you wouldn't borrow irresponsibly for a house or a car.

4) You're comparing apples to oranges. The United States has a weak primary and secondary school educational system, but that is not what we're discussing. We have the best secondary educational system in the world, bar none. There was a recent NPR piece on German education and how awful it is compared to US education, even at the top schools in Germany- lecture halls are massive, professors don't know you, everything is meant to be cheap and efficient rather than high quality, you are pigeon-holed into a career early on, etc. They sacrifice quality for quantity and low cost.

5) Tuition caps aren't a viable solution, as they don't work for all schools. The market is far better at sorting these things out than just setting some arbitrary upper limit. If public school is 20k per year and Harvard is 120k per year, people will stop going to Harvard. Sure, the wealthy might be able to send their kids there, but they'll lose the truly top talent due to their being locked out by tuition, and their reputation will suffer as a result. A degree is only worth as much as the reputation it carries, so they'd have to bring tuition down to be in-line with what people can reasonably afford, which can easily be limited by limiting the loans that the government offers and getting rid of the bankruptcy clause on any loans above that amount.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
stop joking me. use the federal calculator (https://studentloans.gov/myDirectLoan/mobile/repayment/repaymentEstimator.action): suppose I owe $200k (which I will) and earn $100k as a pharmacist, I will end up paying $300k under PAYE (and more under IBR). Where's the "forgiveness"?

The forgiveness happens after 25 years of qualifying payments under IBR/PAYE and less under PSLF. I'm not here to educate you - go learn about these programs yourself.

You're complaining about how interest works. Yes, you pay more on loaned principle if you choose to pay that principle off over longer periods of time. Interest encourages capital to be used as loans by offering a return on investment. Good luck getting people - or even the government - to invest huge sums of money with absolutely zero return over long periods of time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
wow, you aren't seriously proposing cutting SOCIAL SECURITY and MEDICARE, are you? if these are cut, I'll move to Europe where I can have universal healthcare, generous pension, free tuition, paid childcare and maternity+paternity leave, seriously! (and European doctors do make comparable salaries to American counterparts, mind you).

having a capable military makes sense, but why do we need to spend billions of dollars interfering in other countries' politics? i don't support wasting that $ while it could be used to help our citizens - unless those countries become a real threat to us, there's no reason to interfere.
Yes, I am proposing cutting them. Privatizing them, really. Instead of putting SS and medicare money into a government fund, it should go into a private account that you have access to and control over. Currently that money goes to the government and they just spend it- by privatizing it, you would actually own your money. Privatization would also stimulate the market, as those funds would go into investments rather than being instantly blown by the government. And you'd be able to retire far better off, since a lifetime of market returns on the amount you put into SS will net you far, far more than the paltry amount SS eventually pays you. I've done the math in previous threads, but the average worker would more than double their retirement income by being forced to put that money in the market rather than collecting SS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
shocking, when you earn more, you pay more.

This entire discussion is backwards. Instead of talking about how those better off can contribute more to our country's prosperity, we are talking about ways to **** over the majority of Americans so that those few with abundance can have even more abundance.

For a Christian nation, the US is decidedly anti-Christian in practice. Remember the parable of the widow, in which the donation of two mites means more to God than all the gifts of the rich. It's not the absolute amount but the relative amount that truly matters.
Taxes are not to be conflated with the prosperity of the United States.
Tax money is not to be conflated with charity.
The government is not to be conflated with a church.
 
funny how no one said this about the dozen or so wars (sorry engagements) that we start every decade that cost literally tens of trillions of dollars.

But if it's blacks and hispanics (sorry, "urban") buying "steak and lobster" (when it's really beef jerky and canned tuna), everyone gets into an uproar.



You obviously don't understand the logic behind it. Only the HQ goes overseas, which allows the company to claim the profits as being produced overseas, even if 100% of revenue comes from US customers. This way, they can reap the profits here while avoiding taxes. You'd be wise to notice that these companies never relocate HQs where they do major operations; it's always some ****hole Eastern European country with lax tax laws. It's not taxing overseas companies on overseas revenue, it's taxing American companies who are too cowardly and too unpatriotic to pay taxes on profits earned in the US.



The scale is incredibly different. This is like complaining about a little bit of sand in your shoes when you live in the middle of the Sahara desert. A single B-2 bomber costs $2 billion.
Yeah, because everyone is all about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars lol. I thought they were a massive waste of money myself, and was bitching about them from day 1.
 
Top