US Supreme Court strikes down student loan forgiveness plan

[JCauto]

On 7/1/2023 at 1:00 AM, KhunLA said:

Anyone considering the folks who couldn't afford to go to college, or qualify for loan, now working a job, not paying as much as a college grad, who got the loan, education, and now working a better salaried job.

 

They would have been forced, via their tax $$$ to subsidize someone's education, that they couldn't afford for themselves, and to folks making much better salaries, up to $125k a year.

 

Does that sound fair ... ????

$1.7 trillion dollars for student loan forgiveness versus 1.9 - 2.3 trillion dollar tax cut that disproportionately went to the wealthiest Americans and corporations. And, by the way, mandated big tax increases for the middle class after the first couple years but not for the wealthy. 

 

Does that sound fair? 

[KhunLA]

7 hours ago, JCauto said:

$1.7 trillion dollars for student loan forgiveness versus 1.9 - 2.3 trillion dollar tax cut that disproportionately went to the wealthiest Americans and corporations. And, by the way, mandated big tax increases for the middle class after the first couple years but not for the wealthy. 

 

Does that sound fair? 

Not familiar with it, but if accurate, of course not.

 

But, 2 wrongs don't make a right.  Sending billions in foreign aid when veterans aren't being helped properly or Americans are living on the streets, not by choice is wrong also.

 

But not the topic ... also why I stopped producing & paying taxes.  40% of my income taxed & misspent IMHO  

 

No thanks, better places/TH to invest and not get taxed.

[Yellowtail]

8 hours ago, JCauto said:

$1.7 trillion dollars for student loan forgiveness versus 1.9 - 2.3 trillion dollar tax cut that disproportionately went to the wealthiest Americans and corporations. And, by the way, mandated big tax increases for the middle class after the first couple years but not for the wealthy. 

 

Does that sound fair? 

Do you have any facts that support your claim about the 1.9 - 2.3 trillion dollar tax cut that disproportionately went to the wealthiest Americans and corporations?

 

I understand how complex this must sound, but tax cuts by definition disproportionately benefit taxpayers. Tax recipients, such as welfare recipients and people reneging/wanting to renege on their student loans generally do not benefit from tax cuts. 

 

To be clear, tax cuts only let the people that actually fund welfare and the student loan keep a little more of their money. 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Not familiar with it, but if accurate, of course not.

 

But, 2 wrongs don't make a right.  Sending billions in foreign aid when veterans aren't being helped properly or Americans are living on the streets, not by choice is wrong also.

 

But not the topic ... also why I stopped producing & paying taxes.  40% of my income taxed & misspent IMHO  

 

No thanks, better places/TH to invest and not get taxed.

Do not be fooled. Anyone concerned about fairness would never consider loan forgiveness fair, except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances. 

 

[KhunLA]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

Do not be fooled. Anyone concerned about fairness would never consider loan forgiveness fair, except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances. 

If going to forgive loans, it has to be everyone's, not just one type.  Not just borrowers either, or one sector of customers. 

 

If giving $$$ away, you need to give it to everyone, who paid taxes, as it's their money.

[pomchop]

21 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

Seems some folks are not real happy with the issue, either here on the forum or in the US.

 

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185327143/student-loan-forgiveness-supreme-court-reactions

 

Friday's Supreme Court decision striking down President Biden's student loan cancellation plan has left a lot of borrowers wondering: Where do we go from here?

"I would say Congress needs to pass this, but that's not going to happen," says Graeme Strickland, a 25-year-old borrower in Raleigh, N.C. "It's become a culture war around this issue. And like, this is my income. This affects the money I'm able to spend on groceries."

Strickland attended the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, as an in-state student. In order to attend, he had to take out roughly $30,000 in federal loans, which is on par with the national average for a bachelor's degree from a public institution.

30 k in loans is way way less than lots of students have...UNC and many other state universities are a bargain compared to many private schools.

 

  Frankly not sure i have all that much sympathy for people who want to go to duke or private schools that are way way more expensive and rack up the debt.  Of course going to Duke or Harvard or Stanford is more "impressive"  and while they are good schools there is no real reason you cannot get a very high quality education at a state school and save going in debt head over heels because you just have to go to a private school.  Lots of people would like to drive a rolls royce  (but can't afford it) but end up driving a ford and it still gets you where you wanted to go.

[proton]

Happy 4th of July

 

 

[JCauto]

On 7/3/2023 at 9:19 AM, Yellowtail said:

Do you have any facts that support your claim about the 1.9 - 2.3 trillion dollar tax cut that disproportionately went to the wealthiest Americans and corporations?

 

I understand how complex this must sound, but tax cuts by definition disproportionately benefit taxpayers. Tax recipients, such as welfare recipients and people reneging/wanting to renege on their student loans generally do not benefit from tax cuts. 

 

To be clear, tax cuts only let the people that actually fund welfare and the student loan keep a little more of their money. 

https://itep.org/faulty-fact-check-on-tax-breaks-for-the-rich-and-corporations/

 

If you want to look at the article that the pro-Trump guy used to "make his case", this is the link:

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/distributional-analysis-conference-agreement-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/full

 

It's pretty clear. Surprised you challenged something that's widely understood to be true.

[JCauto]

On 7/3/2023 at 9:29 AM, KhunLA said:

If going to forgive loans, it has to be everyone's, not just one type.  Not just borrowers either, or one sector of customers. 

 

If giving $$$ away, you need to give it to everyone, who paid taxes, as it's their money.

This is the most laughable argument ever. You're basically saying "the government should not be able to pass any laws that result in benefits to anyone unless EVERYONE receives similar benefits". This basically means the government cannot pass any laws affecting the budget. I argued previously about how this would ALSO invalidate the Trump tax cuts (which were substantially larger) and provided the evidence. Have you any rebuttal to that?

[KhunLA]

28 minutes ago, JCauto said:

Have you any rebuttal to that?

Yes, but I can't be bothered, as I thought my reply was self explanatory.  Since I neither pay taxes nor have a student loan, anything that happens over there doesn't really concern me with exception of COLA & exchange rate.

 

2024  BIDEN   2024

 

OK, I'll answer a wee bit.   They took on the debt voluntarily, not different than someone buying a car or house.   Why should their debt be forgiven, and not others. 

 

Thought that was easily explained before.   Everyone is living in the same economic times, deal with it.

 

Enough with the hand outs.  Apparently the SCOTUS agrees with that sentiment.   Just accept it.

Edited July 7, 2023 by KhunLA

[Yellowtail]

51 minutes ago, JCauto said:

https://itep.org/faulty-fact-check-on-tax-breaks-for-the-rich-and-corporations/

 

If you want to look at the article that the pro-Trump guy used to "make his case", this is the link:

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/distributional-analysis-conference-agreement-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/full

 

It's pretty clear. Surprised you challenged something that's widely understood to be true.

Wow, no facts provided, juet a link to an opinion piece, I'm shocked. 

 

It's one of those things "...that's widely understood to be true." by the left. 

 

Again, as the poor do not pay income taxes, by definition, tax cuts only benefit taxpayers, and as the rich pay a disproportionate amount of all taxes, usually the rich disproportionately benefit from tax cuts. 

 

I'm surprised you didn't know that. 

 

In any evert, the topic is whether it's fair for the President to use taxpayer money to selectivly pay off student loans. The court has already determined it was not legal. I do not think it's fair, but we all know fairness does not matter. 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, JCauto said:

This is the most laughable argument ever. You're basically saying "the government should not be able to pass any laws that result in benefits to anyone unless EVERYONE receives similar benefits". This basically means the government cannot pass any laws affecting the budget. I argued previously about how this would ALSO invalidate the Trump tax cuts (which were substantially larger) and provided the evidence. Have you any rebuttal to that?

The court struck down something the President was trying to do illegally, not something Congress had passed into law. 

 

I'm surprised you didn't know that. 

[KhunLA]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I'm surprised you didn't know that. 

I'm not ... ????

[JCauto]

On 7/7/2023 at 8:10 AM, Yellowtail said:

Wow, no facts provided, juet a link to an opinion piece, I'm shocked. 

 

It's one of those things "...that's widely understood to be true." by the left. 

 

Again, as the poor do not pay income taxes, by definition, tax cuts only benefit taxpayers, and as the rich pay a disproportionate amount of all taxes, usually the rich disproportionately benefit from tax cuts. 

 

I'm surprised you didn't know that. 

 

In any evert, the topic is whether it's fair for the President to use taxpayer money to selectivly pay off student loans. The court has already determined it was not legal. I do not think it's fair, but we all know fairness does not matter.

No fact provided? Did you click on the links? The first one is the opinion piece that is pro-Trump and contains pretty much nothing but opinion without factual verification - it's the one supporting your side, not mine. . The second one, called "Distributional Analysis of the Conference Agreement for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" contains hardly any opinion at all. It has pretty much nothing but facts and estimates of the tax changes resulting from the act.

This is why it's so tedious to "debate" with the Right - you are completely comfortable with blatantly lying in response to a reasonable post in order to characterize it as the opposite of what it is.

As to your points:

"The poor do not pay income taxes" - that's not true unless you're going to get sophist about "income". With the various taxes applied at state and federal level, the poorest pay around 11-12% in tax. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-does-federal-tax-system-affect-low-income-households

 

"The rich pay a disproportionate amount of all taxes" - that's true, it's called "progressive taxation" and is a widely accepted principle used in pretty much every liberal democracy in the USA and Europe, with Estonia being the only exception I'm aware of (they apply a flat tax).

The legal question was not whether it is legal for the President to use money to selectively pay off student loans, it was about the Act he used as the basis for the cancellation and whether that specific act (used for "emergencies") would apply to the student loan repayment issue. There will be another attempt using other legislation to find other ways. But this was never the legal question that was ruled on.

[JCauto]

On 7/7/2023 at 8:15 AM, Yellowtail said:

The court struck down something the President was trying to do illegally, not something Congress had passed into law. 

 

I'm surprised you didn't know that. 

The court struck down the use of an existing Act passed by Congress covering "emergencies" as the basis for his Executive Action on student loans. It is likely the Biden administration will try to use other legislation as the basis for their intended actions.

[KhunLA]

45 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Preventing people from starving is a worthwhile endeavour. I know it hurts the right wing to help the less fortunate but I'm glad we do.

They went to Uni, far from less fortunate.  I didn't need a hand, and was working from 12 yrs old onward.

 

Uni wasn't even a thought, due to finances for me.

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, JCauto said:

The court struck down the use of an existing Act passed by Congress covering "emergencies" as the basis for his Executive Action on student loans. It is likely the Biden administration will try to use other legislation as the basis for their intended actions.

So, the president tries to cheat and get it through as an emergency (which is clearly is not), gets caught cheating and he's going try to sneak it in another way. Got it. 

 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, JCauto said:

No fact provided? Did you click on the links? The first one is the opinion piece that is pro-Trump and contains pretty much nothing but opinion without factual verification - it's the one supporting your side, not mine. . The second one, called "Distributional Analysis of the Conference Agreement for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" contains hardly any opinion at all. It has pretty much nothing but facts and estimates of the tax changes resulting from the act.

This is why it's so tedious to "debate" with the Right - you are completely comfortable with blatantly lying in response to a reasonable post in order to characterize it as the opposite of what it is.

As to your points:

"The poor do not pay income taxes" - that's not true unless you're going to get sophist about "income". With the various taxes applied at state and federal level, the poorest pay around 11-12% in tax. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-does-federal-tax-system-affect-low-income-households

 

"The rich pay a disproportionate amount of all taxes" - that's true, it's called "progressive taxation" and is a widely accepted principle used in pretty much every liberal democracy in the USA and Europe, with Estonia being the only exception I'm aware of (they apply a flat tax).

The legal question was not whether it is legal for the President to use money to selectively pay off student loans, it was about the Act he used as the basis for the cancellation and whether that specific act (used for "emergencies") would apply to the student loan repayment issue. There will be another attempt using other legislation to find other ways. But this was never the legal question that was ruled on.

We were discussions whether it's fair for the President to use taxpayer money to selectively pay off student loans. The court has already determined it was not legal. I do not think it's fair, but we all know fairness does not matter.

 

You regurgitating the same old "tax breaks for the rich" leftist rhetoric does not really add to the discussion. 

 

Because one thing is unfair, it not a good excuse to do another that is not fair. 

 

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

We were discussions whether it's fair for the President to use taxpayer money to selectively pay off student loans. The court has already determined it was not legal. <snip>

 

As you acknowledged earlier, the court didn't determine using taxpayers money to selectively pay off student loans is illegal. 

The court determined the decree used was not used lawfully.

[ozimoron]

19 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, the president tries to cheat and get it through as an emergency (which is clearly is not), gets caught cheating and he's going try to sneak it in another way. Got it. 

 

Your predicate that it isn't an emergency is incorrect. The emergency is that the economy will be significantly weakened by the withdrawal of 400 billion from the economy at a time when the US is facing some sort of recession. Of course we know that nobbling the economy is a deliberate strategy by the unpatriotic Republicans to harm Biden and help Trump get re-elected. Biden has no choice but to act against the far right activist supreme court.

 

This unpatriotic strategy was clearly seen by the Freedom party's intransigence in honoring US debts recently and trying to enforce budget cuts as a ransom ploy. Of course the fiscal hawks were nowhere to be seen when Trump was president.

Edited July 9, 2023 by ozimoron

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Preventing people from starving is a worthwhile endeavour. I know it hurts the right wing to help the less fortunate but I'm glad we do.

So, it's college graduates in the US that are now the "less fortunate"? 

 

I think a disproportionate percentage of college graduates in the US are Democrats, coincidence? I think not. 

 

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

As you acknowledged earlier, the court didn't determine using taxpayers money to selectively pay off student loans is illegal. 

The court determined the decree used was not used lawfully.

Why did the President use the decree unlawfully? 

 

I can make arguments either way about the loan issue, but it's clearly not an emergency. How about letting congress do its job and not try to circumvent it? 

 

I would support "free" higher education based on meritocratic selection. 

 

 

[ozimoron]

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, it's college graduates in the US that are now the "less fortunate"? 

 

I think a disproportionate percentage of college graduates in the US are Democrats, coincidence? I think not. 

 

It most definitely isn't a coincidence. More college grads are liberal than conservative. After harming Biden's economy, this is a second cherry in the pie for the right wing.

 

The policy itself is not partisan, plenty of grads from working class Republican families would benefit. It's just that grads do tend to be more liberal which explains the Republican attacks on public education in general.

Edited July 9, 2023 by ozimoron

[Yellowtail]

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Your predicate that it isn't an emergency is incorrect. The emergency is that the economy will be significantly weakened by the withdrawal of 400 billion from the economy at a time when the US is facing some sort of recession. Of course we know that nobbling the economy is a deliberate strategy by the unpatriotic Republicans to harm Biden and help Trump get re-elected. Biden has no choice but to act against the far right activist supreme court.

What 400 billion? Why don't we just print more? The deficit is at an all-time low, isn't it? 

[Rimmer]

Some off topic posts and replies have been removed

[sqwakvfr]

In the ancient times of the 1980’s I took out student loans.  I paid them all back.  I took jobs many of the 20’s today would never consider: 1) midnight shift at 7-11 2) Deliver newspapers 3) Weekend drills with the California National Guard.  All this while pursuing full time employment.  In the late 1980’s the job market in the US was just as tough as it is now.  

 

TFB (Too Frickin Bad) now start making payments. 

 

Also, if student loans were to be given to alleviate the financial hardships on the graduates then what next?  Yes I know banks were bailed out back in 2008 but most graduates with degrees that are not relevant to the current job market aren not “Too Big to fail”.  

 

Whether you like him or despise him Dave Ramsey has a strong opinion on this and I totally agree with him( this rarely occurs).  

[JCauto]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

We were discussions whether it's fair for the President to use taxpayer money to selectively pay off student loans. The court has already determined it was not legal. I do not think it's fair, but we all know fairness does not matter.

 

You regurgitating the same old "tax breaks for the rich" leftist rhetoric does not really add to the discussion. 

 

Because one thing is unfair, it not a good excuse to do another that is not fair. 

 

So now that I thoroughly rebutted your points, you ignore the substance and move back to the original "thought" as if nothing whatsoever had been discussed. I suppose you never did have any intention of honest debate, you're just here to troll. Boring.

[Yellowtail]

35 minutes ago, JCauto said:

So now that I thoroughly rebutted your points, you ignore the substance and move back to the original "thought" as if nothing whatsoever had been discussed. I suppose you never did have any intention of honest debate, you're just here to troll. Boring.

What I said was: The court struck down something the President was trying to do illegally, not something Congress had passed into law. 

 

How did you going on and on about "tax breaks for the rich" and pointing out the President inappropriately used an "...Act passed by Congress covering "emergencies'..." thoroughly rebut my statement? If anything, it looks like it supports it. 

 

Now you want to play the troll-card? 

 

 

[JCauto]

21 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What I said was: The court struck down something the President was trying to do illegally, not something Congress had passed into law. 

 

How did you going on and on about "tax breaks for the rich" and pointing out the President inappropriately used an "...Act passed by Congress covering "emergencies'..." thoroughly rebut my statement? If anything, it looks like it supports it. 

 

Now you want to play the troll-card? 

 

 

You wrote "Do you have any facts that support your claim about the 1.9 - 2.3 trillion dollar tax cut that disproportionately went to the wealthiest Americans and corporations?"

I responded with comprehensive evidence. You observed that post and wrote "Wow, no facts provided, juet a link to an opinion piece, I'm shocked." despite the only opinion piece being the one supporting your viewpoint and the facts being comprehensive.

You then moved on to your next tedious attempt to shift the goalposts, where you try to pretend that Biden did something illegal...like I said, you're a boring troll.

[bamnutsak]

On 7/1/2023 at 10:57 AM, Hanaguma said:

You took out a loan. Now, pay it back.

 

Virtually all PPP loans have been forgiven with limited scrutiny

 

As COVID-19 shutdowns threatened businesses back in 2020, the U.S. government began issuing nearly $800 billion in potentially forgivable Paycheck Protection Program loans. The program was designed to help small businesses keep workers employed during the uncertain early days of the pandemic.

 

More than two years later, the overwhelming majority of these loans have transformed into government grants, as 91% have been either fully or partially forgiven, according to an NPR analysis of data released by the Small Business Administration on Oct. 2.

 

The SBA expects that figure to grow to nearly 100% as more forgiveness requests are processed this fall.

 

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/12/1128207464/ppp-loans-loan-forgiveness-small-business

 

Edited July 9, 2023 by bamnutsak