This story of loan forgiveness does not sit well with me

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't kid yourselves, student loan forgiveness is nothing more than vote buying by the Democrats.

And corporate tax cuts and bailouts are vote buying by the Republicans. Pick your constituency.

Last I looked a lot of big corporations are run by liberals/Democrats and there are a lot of Democrats who are billionaires. Keep trying you’ll get there.

? big corporations are usually run by Rs with deep pockets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He not only gets to discharge the debt he also isn't going to have to pay any taxes on that. Ordinarily the IRS considers discharge debt to be income. Through the end of 2025, no borrowers will pay federal income taxes on any student debt discharged by the federal government. A provision in the March 2021 COVID-19 relief package stipulates that any debt forgiven from Dec. 31, 2020, to Jan. 1, 2026, will not count as income

The guy is so scammy. He has an online presence so on a lesson webpage his bio includes that he attended University of North Carolina School of the Arts where tuition for instate residents is CURRENTLY only $6,497 for residents. Granted room and board, food, and health insurance adds quite a bit but regardless you would have to pay that somewhere. The reason why he probably still has loans is that he proudly explains how he visits his guru in India EVERY YEAR:

Seeing the value of introspection through the study of music, Joel began to become interested in meditation as a way to improve his artistry. At age 17, he began a 20 year study of Tai Chi and Chi Gong (Sang Gee Tam, David Harold, "Jin Taiyang" Kris Brenner, and Master Yang Fukui), which eventually led him to and intensive study of Zen meditation with the Mountains and Rivers Order in New York in 2004. From there, meditation became the driving force in his life, and developed an Advaita practice in the Indian tradition. Joel has been visiting Jaipur, India to study with his teacher every year since 2011.

this is exactly why this story doesn't sit well with me.

Who goes on an annual trip for meditation when they have $250K student loans? Instead of doing that maybe that should've gone to paying down your loans.

I'm not saying people like this shouldn't be able to have some fun, but I grew up lower income, and we did not go on international vacations, not even back to my parents' home country. They did not go back until like 15 years later after they started making more and had no other debt than a small mortgage. My mom hadn't seen her siblings for 15 years.

You hear stories of people who scrimped and saved and lived frugally just to afford college for their kids, and then you have this guy who majored in fluff, didn't get a better paying job even though he knew he should've, and still went on international vacations every year.

And yea, the rich people getting PPP loans also don't sit well with me, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG -- I wish someone would create a chart that compares the "cost" of student loan forgiveness against the cost of tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations.

Why do Americans think it's totally unfair to forgive student loans but it's totally fine that most US corporations pay almost nothing in taxes?

When Republicans eliminate taxes for the super rich and for corporations, everyone shrugs.

When Democrats eliminate crippling student loan debt for a few thousand people, everyone goes nuts.

Explain it to me like I'm 5.

I'll explain to you.

If you worked hard and tried to figure out a way to pay your debt by getting a higher paying job, then got it forgiven, that's fine.

If you did not want to get a higher paying job even though you knew you should to pay the debt, but then decided to stick it to the taxpayers and go off on a meditation vacation, then it's not fine.

Understand?

Who are you to judge who "worked hard" enough? Do corps have to make such a showing before getting debt written off in bankruptcy (no, no they don't).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG -- I wish someone would create a chart that compares the "cost" of student loan forgiveness against the cost of tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations.

Why do Americans think it's totally unfair to forgive student loans but it's totally fine that most US corporations pay almost nothing in taxes?

When Republicans eliminate taxes for the super rich and for corporations, everyone shrugs.

When Democrats eliminate crippling student loan debt for a few thousand people, everyone goes nuts.

Explain it to me like I'm 5.

I'll explain to you.

If you worked hard and tried to figure out a way to pay your debt by getting a higher paying job, then got it forgiven, that's fine.

If you did not want to get a higher paying job even though you knew you should to pay the debt, but then decided to stick it to the taxpayers and go off on a meditation vacation, then it's not fine.

Understand?

Who are you to judge who "worked hard" enough? Do corps have to make such a showing before getting debt written off in bankruptcy (no, no they don't).

This guy even knew he should get a higher paying job, so yea I judge him. It's my tax money that paid his debt off, so I think I have the right to judge how my money is used.

Yea, corporations actually do have to show that they attempted to cut back and do what they need to get their debt written off.

[Anonymous]

SAME OP I gave 7 year of my life to the military for the GI bill can I get my time back?

My spouse worked and went to school at the same time for 12 years so they could afford it because they didn't want to take out loans.

Now they're handing out free money. WTF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe in loan forgiveness. But I was shocked at the way student loans are ran. Seems to me that interest shouldn’t start until you graduate. My Dh had 50k in loans that ballooned to 80k by the time he paid them off at 27. Ridiculous.

I don't believe in loan forgiveness either but why is it ridiculous? When you take a loan for your house does the interest on the mortgage start accruing 4 years later? No. If you want to borrow money there is a cost and it's called interest. The facts are anyone who takes out a loan for college is accepting the terms of the loan when they sign. No one holds a gun to their heads forcing them to take out the loan. And then there are HS graduates who forego college and enter the work force right after high school or take a loan to start a business. What a raw deal for those folks. This program is all about Biden and the Democrats buying votes for this upcoming election cycle because their horrendous policies are not enough to get people to vote for them.

The difference is that when you take out a mortgage in a house, you get the benefit right away-- you own the house and can live in it, rent it out, or sell it. Of course interest accrues immediately.

Education loans are very different different because you are not buying a tangible asset. You are buying a non-transferable credential that you only get the benefit of if you complete the program (which will require lots of labor). Education loans have no collateral,cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, and may result in long term debt for a benefit the borrower never actually receives (if they fail to complete the program). So there are a lot of reasons to treat education loans differently that a mortgage, car loan, credit card, HELOC, etc. They are very unique.

Absolutely incorrect. When you take out a student loan, you are getting money to purchase your tuition for a period of time. And you do get that immediately - you wouldn't be able to attend classes otherwise.

Also, you are not buying a credential. You are "buying" the ability to attend class.

Finally, "very unique?" You should go back to your university and ask for a refund.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s infuriating. I know some people personally who quit their good paying… but “boring”… jobs to pursue their passions and now live off welfare. At least they don’t live near me so I know my money isn’t going to them

Funny how people get infuriated at people with modest incomes scamming the system but shrug their shoulders at people scamming billions of dollars from taxpayer coffers.

The late billionaire Sheldon Adelson, for example, used a complicated trust mechanism called a “grantor retained annuity trust (GRAT)” to “pass on $7.9 billion to his children while avoiding $2.8 billion in gift and estate taxes.”

I am quite capable of being infuriated with both types of people.

This exemplifies a fundamental miscalculation of Democrats, though - the notion that all Ds support loan forgiveness. We don't. They are fortunate that it is not enough to make me vote for a national Republican - but it may be for other people. And if enough of those people live in PA, MI, AZ, etc . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s infuriating. I know some people personally who quit their good paying… but “boring”… jobs to pursue their passions and now live off welfare. At least they don’t live near me so I know my money isn’t going to them

Funny how people get infuriated at people with modest incomes scamming the system but shrug their shoulders at people scamming billions of dollars from taxpayer coffers.

The late billionaire Sheldon Adelson, for example, used a complicated trust mechanism called a “grantor retained annuity trust (GRAT)” to “pass on $7.9 billion to his children while avoiding $2.8 billion in gift and estate taxes.”

All smart wealthy people use trusts (and other means) to legally pass on their estates while avoiding estate taxes. Fact is that money was already taxed once, there is absolutely no reason it should be taxed again to transfer it to your kids. Fact is there are plenty of legal ways to avoid this and have been for decades.

We earned our money, 95%+ of it as W2 income and taxed at the highest rate. Absolutely no reason for the govt to take 40-50% (fed and state) of it when we die.

That's your opinion, not a fact. Plenty of advanced economies tax estates at a far higher rate, and their societies are more equal and more harmonious for it. My opinion is that we don't need to have billionaires passing on the bulk of their megafortunes to their heirs tax free while there are hungry children in America who could benefit from better social welfare supports.

See above. Happy to pay my taxes once. I've paid more in State taxes in a SINGLE year than most people will earn in a lifetime. I've already contributed to social welfare programs and happily support them. I'm not a billionaire totally avoiding taxes. Most of our income is W2 or interest and some cap gains. We have no way to shelter it legally, so we pay high taxes yearly. I donate to several organizations of my choosing to locally support at an even better level. But still do not support the govt taxing my money a 2nd time and will utilize all tools possible to avoid that.

I also still believe people should take some responsibility for themselves, and that includes not overpaying for college and expecting others to subsidize you. When it is totally possible to get a good education that is AFFORDABLE.

Sigh. When money is transferred, it is taxed. Whether that's 1099 income, W-2 income, dividends, gambling winnings, or inheritance. When your money is transferred to your kids, it ceases to become your money, and becomes theirs. Hence, it is transferred, and therefore taxed. It *already* receives significant tax preferences - a tax exemption up to a defined amount, and then a lower tax rate than ordinary income.

The "double taxation" argument is made by people who either know better but are advancing an agenda, or are easily gulled by simplistic talking points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Outliers are everywhere. Look at the big picture, not the person the journalist thought would get the most clicks.

Agree with this. I like the student loan forgiveness. And I speak as someone who was able to pay off my loans AND pay for my kids college. I am fortunate and I realize that

I'm all for some loan forgiveness. But kids and parents need to STOP taking out $$$ to attend schools they cannot afford. If you cannot afford more than $25K/year, then don't attend a school that costs $90k+/year and take loans. Find a state school that gives you merit/private that gives merit and have your kid work FT on all breaks and PT during the year where they can earn 10K per year easily.

But I don't see why I should be paying for someone who choose to got to a school that costs $65K per year, major in Art history, then only be able to get a job making $25K/year and complain they cannot pay their loans. No Shit Sherlock! Common sense would have told them that they would most likely only start at $25-30K, and therefore should not have loans totally anymore than $25K over 4 years.

There has to be some personal responsibility for people. College can be done without massive debt, you just have to choose wisely.

And I don’t understand why corporations can bankruptcy and never pay their bills.

Then turn around and restructure under a new name and continuing as if nothing happened.

Don’t be a d!ck pay your bills.

Yes everyone should pay their bills.

But the argument that Corporations do it, so I as an individual should be able to not pay my bills isn't a strong one.
Take personal responsibility. If you are smart enough for college, then you should be able to understand A) what your average starting salary will be for possible majors and B) how taking loans works and what your monthly payments will be for 10 year+ after graduation. If not, perhaps you shouldn't be at college

Except student loans should not be treated any different than other forms of debt in personal bankruptcies.

If student loans were treated as normal debt, the market would be far more rational because the lender would know that a borrower could have the debt significantly reduced in a bankruptcy situation. Credit standards and amounts would be much different.

Really? When the vast majority of college students graduate, they have no assets, and could declare bankruptcy immediately. The only people who woudl qualify for loans are the people who don't need them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Outliers are everywhere. Look at the big picture, not the person the journalist thought would get the most clicks.

Agree with this. I like the student loan forgiveness. And I speak as someone who was able to pay off my loans AND pay for my kids college. I am fortunate and I realize that

I'm all for some loan forgiveness. But kids and parents need to STOP taking out $$$ to attend schools they cannot afford. If you cannot afford more than $25K/year, then don't attend a school that costs $90k+/year and take loans. Find a state school that gives you merit/private that gives merit and have your kid work FT on all breaks and PT during the year where they can earn 10K per year easily.

But I don't see why I should be paying for someone who choose to got to a school that costs $65K per year, major in Art history, then only be able to get a job making $25K/year and complain they cannot pay their loans. No Shit Sherlock! Common sense would have told them that they would most likely only start at $25-30K, and therefore should not have loans totally anymore than $25K over 4 years.

There has to be some personal responsibility for people. College can be done without massive debt, you just have to choose wisely.

And I don’t understand why corporations can bankruptcy and never pay their bills.

Then turn around and restructure under a new name and continuing as if nothing happened.

Don’t be a d!ck pay your bills.

Yes everyone should pay their bills.

But the argument that Corporations do it, so I as an individual should be able to not pay my bills isn't a strong one.
Take personal responsibility. If you are smart enough for college, then you should be able to understand A) what your average starting salary will be for possible majors and B) how taking loans works and what your monthly payments will be for 10 year+ after graduation. If not, perhaps you shouldn't be at college

Except student loans should not be treated any different than other forms of debt in personal bankruptcies.

If student loans were treated as normal debt, the market would be far more rational because the lender would know that a borrower could have the debt significantly reduced in a bankruptcy situation. Credit standards and amounts would be much different.

Really? When the vast majority of college students graduate, they have no assets, and could declare bankruptcy immediately. The only people who woudl qualify for loans are the people who don't need them.

The vast majority of adults with CC balances have little to no assets either...yet CC debt gets discharged in bankruptcy. They have a job and the threat of bankruptcy is powerful enough to dissuade most people from just declaring bankruptcy.

Most college graduates get jobs that will service their debts. However, if student loans were not handed out like candy, then college costs wouldn't explode and also people would make far more rational decisions to attend colleges with better ROI.

Also, many employers will do background and credit check...especially if your kid is working in financial services. A bankruptcy filing on your record could very much imperil your job prospects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do they determine who gets their loans canceled?

They’re not canceled, they’re paid by generous taxpayers without our consent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SAME OP I gave 7 year of my life to the military for the GI bill can I get my time back?

My spouse worked and went to school at the same time for 12 years so they could afford it because they didn't want to take out loans.

Now they're handing out free money. WTF?

And yet you’ll still vote for president daddy warbucks and his crew. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He not only gets to discharge the debt he also isn't going to have to pay any taxes on that. Ordinarily the IRS considers discharge debt to be income. Through the end of 2025, no borrowers will pay federal income taxes on any student debt discharged by the federal government. A provision in the March 2021 COVID-19 relief package stipulates that any debt forgiven from Dec. 31, 2020, to Jan. 1, 2026, will not count as income

The guy is so scammy. He has an online presence so on a lesson webpage his bio includes that he attended University of North Carolina School of the Arts where tuition for instate residents is CURRENTLY only $6,497 for residents. Granted room and board, food, and health insurance adds quite a bit but regardless you would have to pay that somewhere. The reason why he probably still has loans is that he proudly explains how he visits his guru in India EVERY YEAR:

Seeing the value of introspection through the study of music, Joel began to become interested in meditation as a way to improve his artistry. At age 17, he began a 20 year study of Tai Chi and Chi Gong (Sang Gee Tam, David Harold, "Jin Taiyang" Kris Brenner, and Master Yang Fukui), which eventually led him to and intensive study of Zen meditation with the Mountains and Rivers Order in New York in 2004. From there, meditation became the driving force in his life, and developed an Advaita practice in the Indian tradition. Joel has been visiting Jaipur, India to study with his teacher every year since 2011.

this is exactly why this story doesn't sit well with me.

Who goes on an annual trip for meditation when they have $250K student loans? Instead of doing that maybe that should've gone to paying down your loans.

I'm not saying people like this shouldn't be able to have some fun, but I grew up lower income, and we did not go on international vacations, not even back to my parents' home country. They did not go back until like 15 years later after they started making more and had no other debt than a small mortgage. My mom hadn't seen her siblings for 15 years.

You hear stories of people who scrimped and saved and lived frugally just to afford college for their kids, and then you have this guy who majored in fluff, didn't get a better paying job even though he knew he should've, and still went on international vacations every year.

And yea, the rich people getting PPP loans also don't sit well with me, either.

Yes, people without the income to support vacations do not get to take vacations. All of my family vacations growing up were pack up the station wagon, hook up the pop up camper and drive somewhere 8-10 hours at max and explore. Our camper had no running water or bathroom. We just stopped, set it up and used the public facilities at the camp site you paid for (at that time like $10/night). And then we went hiking, swam in lakes, etc. A real treat would be going out to eat for one dinner or grabbing ice cream out. Otherwise all meals were prepared over the fire or on the portable propane camping stove, with food kept in a cooler with ice.

That was it, because that's all we could afford. We didn't go to Disney, or anywhere that we had to stay in hotels. We didn't fly. Because my parents didn't do things they couldn't afford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG -- I wish someone would create a chart that compares the "cost" of student loan forgiveness against the cost of tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations.

Why do Americans think it's totally unfair to forgive student loans but it's totally fine that most US corporations pay almost nothing in taxes?

When Republicans eliminate taxes for the super rich and for corporations, everyone shrugs.

When Democrats eliminate crippling student loan debt for a few thousand people, everyone goes nuts.

Explain it to me like I'm 5.

I'll explain to you.

If you worked hard and tried to figure out a way to pay your debt by getting a higher paying job, then got it forgiven, that's fine.

If you did not want to get a higher paying job even though you knew you should to pay the debt, but then decided to stick it to the taxpayers and go off on a meditation vacation, then it's not fine.

Understand?

Who are you to judge who "worked hard" enough? Do corps have to make such a showing before getting debt written off in bankruptcy (no, no they don't).

This guy even knew he should get a higher paying job, so yea I judge him. It's my tax money that paid his debt off, so I think I have the right to judge how my money is used.

Yea, corporations actually do have to show that they attempted to cut back and do what they need to get their debt written off.

Yup! And individuals should know that a music major (I have a degree in that as well) isn't likely to pay off $200K+ in loans with just that degree. So don't take out that much in loans. Just like I don't buy a $75K car if I can't afford it. I buy a 25K car, or a $15K used car or I keep driving my 10 year old clunker because it's cheaper to repair than to buy a new car. Time for individuals to be responsible for their own financial decisions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s infuriating. I know some people personally who quit their good paying… but “boring”… jobs to pursue their passions and now live off welfare. At least they don’t live near me so I know my money isn’t going to them

Funny how people get infuriated at people with modest incomes scamming the system but shrug their shoulders at people scamming billions of dollars from taxpayer coffers.

The late billionaire Sheldon Adelson, for example, used a complicated trust mechanism called a “grantor retained annuity trust (GRAT)” to “pass on $7.9 billion to his children while avoiding $2.8 billion in gift and estate taxes.”

All smart wealthy people use trusts (and other means) to legally pass on their estates while avoiding estate taxes. Fact is that money was already taxed once, there is absolutely no reason it should be taxed again to transfer it to your kids. Fact is there are plenty of legal ways to avoid this and have been for decades.

We earned our money, 95%+ of it as W2 income and taxed at the highest rate. Absolutely no reason for the govt to take 40-50% (fed and state) of it when we die.

That's your opinion, not a fact. Plenty of advanced economies tax estates at a far higher rate, and their societies are more equal and more harmonious for it. My opinion is that we don't need to have billionaires passing on the bulk of their megafortunes to their heirs tax free while there are hungry children in America who could benefit from better social welfare supports.

See above. Happy to pay my taxes once. I've paid more in State taxes in a SINGLE year than most people will earn in a lifetime. I've already contributed to social welfare programs and happily support them. I'm not a billionaire totally avoiding taxes. Most of our income is W2 or interest and some cap gains. We have no way to shelter it legally, so we pay high taxes yearly. I donate to several organizations of my choosing to locally support at an even better level. But still do not support the govt taxing my money a 2nd time and will utilize all tools possible to avoid that.

I also still believe people should take some responsibility for themselves, and that includes not overpaying for college and expecting others to subsidize you. When it is totally possible to get a good education that is AFFORDABLE.

Sigh. When money is transferred, it is taxed. Whether that's 1099 income, W-2 income, dividends, gambling winnings, or inheritance. When your money is transferred to your kids, it ceases to become your money, and becomes theirs. Hence, it is transferred, and therefore taxed. It *already* receives significant tax preferences - a tax exemption up to a defined amount, and then a lower tax rate than ordinary income.

The "double taxation" argument is made by people who either know better but are advancing an agenda, or are easily gulled by simplistic talking points.

Sure a portion is "protected" at federal level. Soon to be about 50% of that reduced.

Also, anything over $500,001 is taxed at 37%+ (and any over $1M is 40%), so I'd argue that most is taxed at Higher rate than regular income taxes. Given that the max tax rate is currently 37% Then some states start as low as only $1-2M protected. In my state, first M is 10% and it gradually increases to anything $9M+ is 20%. So yes, I'm going to do everything in my power to ensure my kids don't have to pay 59% taxes on the money we give them upon death. It will be in a trust and also given yearly while alive to take full benefits of not taxing the money for "the death transfer". Call it whatever you want, but once I earn the money, I should be able to transfer it to my family without having to pay a transfer tax.