2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[Brobocop]

Originally Posted by yanksfan1

Can any CPAs here jump in on this: if student loan debt is "canceled", that makes it taxable, right? So if you have 50K in student loans and they "canceled" it, you would essentially treat that 50K as income and get taxed on it accordingly?

I already read that the Biden/Warren/Schumer team that is pushing for this would have to work with the IRS on that. Similar to the stimulus checks, it would just be up to the IRS and Congress how it's treated I think. The backlash they'd get from it being a taxable event would be pretty high. Even if they said you might not get a tax refund for a few years, there'd still be blowback. If they do it, I can't see it being any kind of negative impact to the borrower.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

I already read that the Biden/Warren/Schumer team that is pushing for this would have to work with the IRS on that. Similar to the stimulus checks, it would just be up to the IRS and Congress how it's treated I think. The backlash they'd get from it being a taxable event would be pretty high. Even if they said you might not get a tax refund for a few years, there'd still be blowback. If they do it, I can't see it being any kind of negative impact to the borrower.

Yea, I can't imagine Biden and company taxing the write-off. All you've done is taken what was $50,000 in debt to be paid off in 10-30 years time and instead turned it into ~$15,000 (depends on your income for the year you declare the forgiveness) in Federal tax debt that is all owed NOW!

That would be epic though. It makes me laugh just thinkin' about it.

[JustRachel]

A farmer needs help and hires ten people at $100 a day. Those ten people do fine work.

A month later, the farmer realizes he needs more help. He cannot find anyone else willing to work for $100 a day, so he has to pay $125 a day to get his job done. He now has 10 people at $100 a day and 10 more people at $125 a day, basically doing the same work.

Do the first ten have a beef? The farmer agreed to pay them a certain wage and fulfilled his end of the bargain.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

A farmer needs help and hires ten people at $100 a day. Those ten people do fine work.

A month later, the farmer realizes he needs more help. He cannot find anyone else willing to work for $100 a day, so he has to pay $125 a day to get his job done. He now has 10 people at $100 a day and 10 more people at $125 a day, basically doing the same work.

Do the first ten have a beef? The farmer agreed to pay them a certain wage and fulfilled his end of the bargain.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

You have described every company, everywhere, all the time.

If the first 10 workers are not happy with their wage; they'll ask for a raise or look for work elsewhere. The farmer can decide to raise their wage or let them go. And if their work is better or comparable to the workers earning more money, they'll have little trouble finding another farm where their work is needed.

The farmer can also choose to increase the wage of the first 10 workers to keep them happy and on the farm. So the long answer is no, the workers who signed on early are likely happy w/ their wages but that doesn't mean it lasts for a set period of time.

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

You have described every company, everywhere, all the time.

If the first 10 workers are not happy with their wage; they'll ask for a raise or look for work elsewhere. The farmer can decide to raise their wage or let them go. And if their work is better or comparable to the workers earning more money, they'll have little trouble finding another farm where their work is needed.

The farmer can also choose to increase the wage of the first 10 workers to keep them happy and on the farm. So the long answer is no, the workers who signed on early are likely happy w/ their wages but that doesn't mean it lasts for a set period of time.

Put that into context of student loan forgiveness.

Which principles are the same and which are not? Who has a beef? Who was treated unfairly?

In my mind, it's based on the same principles but it's more complicated because the farmer would be using tax dollars.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[Wade Mulroy]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

A farmer needs help and hires ten people at $100 a day. Those ten people do fine work.

A month later, the farmer realizes he needs more help. He cannot find anyone else willing to work for $100 a day, so he has to pay $125 a day to get his job done. He now has 10 people at $100 a day and 10 more people at $125 a day, basically doing the same work.

Do the first ten have a beef? The farmer agreed to pay them a certain wage and fulfilled his end of the bargain.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

Not really. The workers negotiated their own pay rate and agreed to the terms without any duress. I fully support the farmer in the fact that he shouldn't be obligated to pay the original 10 at the rate of the new 10. Any of the workers can try to renegotiate or go somewhere else at any time.

However, I certainly don't blame the original 10 workers for being a bit miffed that they're getting paid less for the same work. That's just human nature.

That's where I'm at in all of this. As someone who made the necessary sacrifices and planning to ensure my wife and I enjoy our new life together without the burden of student loans, it's irritating if all the effort turns out to be for essentially "nothing." However, I don't expect the government to reward me for being responsible. It's true that I can both feel a bit irritated while also acknowledging that nothing additional is owed to me for my efforts.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

Put that into context of student loan forgiveness.

Which principles are the same and which are not? Who has a beef? Who was treated unfairly?

In my mind, it's based on the same principles but it's more complicated because the farmer would be using tax dollars.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Wade Mulroy

Not really. The workers negotiated their own pay rate and agreed to the terms without any duress. I fully support the farmer in the fact that he shouldn't be obligated to pay the original 10 at the rate of the new 10. Any of the workers can try to renegotiate or go somewhere else at any time.

However, I certainly don't blame the original 10 workers for being a bit miffed that they're getting paid less for the same work. That's just human nature.

That's where I'm at in all of this. As someone who made the necessary sacrifices and planning to ensure my wife and I enjoy our new life together without the burden of student loans, it's irritating if all the effort turns out to be for essentially "nothing." However, I don't expect the government to reward me for being responsible. It's true that I can both feel a bit irritated while also acknowledging that nothing additional is owed to me for my efforts.

The point is well taken. I am not someone who believes in debt forgiveness; when you agree to terms on a mortgage / a loan / a debt of any kind, it should be repaid as agreed to. And doing so is your obligation.

That said, and WM points out, it is human nature to see what others around you are being paid. In this case, what does it say to the farm workers of America as a whole if you treat some workers differently than others, even though they all agreed to the same terms? We have spent countless hours in this thread debating things like racism and inequality and have said that the ultimate goal is to bring the country together and treat everyone fairly and equally.

Isn't something like this the exact opposite of that? Won't this just incense a large group of people who honored their deal and/or chose a different path because it was perceived to be too expensive? The added $600 unemployment benefit was a perfect example IMHO. Democrats said "How can you argue about helping more people in need, who cares of it's more than what they'll make" while Republicans said "Whoa, hold on, won't think have an impact in the labor markets that will make it harder to get people back to work".

We've got to do a better job of considering B. It's not heartless or mean to think of the consequences of these giveaways, even to those in need.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Wade Mulroy

Also, in regards to universities - Is it confirmed that the majority generally promote progressive ideologies on campus? I know that's always been the criticism, but is this the truth, generally speaking?

If so, why aren't they doing more themselves to make education more affordable to the masses? I think it's safe to say that we agree education is one of the big factors that determine wealth and success in America; so why are there so many arguments (from both sides) about universities jacking up tuition rates to unrealistic levels and over-burdening anyone who wants to attend?

I take a pretty simplistic approach to many issues in society, so I realize there are probably plenty of factors I'm not considering. But, if the above statements are true, where is the disconnect?

Because they're businesses. Money is more important than ideology.

[Wade Mulroy]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

The point is well taken. I am not someone who believes in debt forgiveness; when you agree to terms on a mortgage / a loan / a debt of any kind, it should be repaid as agreed to. And doing so is your obligation.

That said, and WM points out, it is human nature to see what others around you are being paid. In this case, what does it say to the farm workers of America as a whole if you treat some workers differently than others, even though they all agreed to the same terms? We have spent countless hours in this thread debating things like racism and inequality and have said that the ultimate goal is to bring the country together and treat everyone fairly and equally.

Isn't something like this the exact opposite of that? Won't this just incense a large group of people who honored their deal and/or chose a different path because it was perceived to be too expensive? The added $600 unemployment benefit was a perfect example IMHO. Democrats said "How can you argue about helping more people in need, who cares of it's more than what they'll make" while Republicans said "Whoa, hold on, won't think have an impact in the labor markets that will make it harder to get people back to work".

We've got to do a better job of considering B. It's not heartless or mean to think of the consequences of these giveaways, even to those in need.

This is a really good point. In my opinion, many of the "wonderful" ideas that are enacted to promote equality seem to actually (inadvertently) create other areas of inequality as a result.

I won't get off-topic with the numerous examples that come to mind, but staying on student-loan forgiveness. Assuming this is enacted and taxes raise as a result, how are families living in LMI areas going to be affected? I know the easy rebuttal is that the rich will be taxed more and they will essentially foot the bill; however, I'm skeptical the Warren Buffetts of the world (and their fancy accountants) are truly going to be the ones paying for it.

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

The point is well taken. I am not someone who believes in debt forgiveness; when you agree to terms on a mortgage / a loan / a debt of any kind, it should be repaid as agreed to. And doing so is your obligation.



That said, and WM points out, it is human nature to see what others around you are being paid. In this case, what does it say to the farm workers of America as a whole if you treat some workers differently than others, even though they all agreed to the same terms? We have spent countless hours in this thread debating things like racism and inequality and have said that the ultimate goal is to bring the country together and treat everyone fairly and equally.



Isn't something like this the exact opposite of that? Won't this just incense a large group of people who honored their deal and/or chose a different path because it was perceived to be too expensive? The added $600 unemployment benefit was a perfect example IMHO. Democrats said "How can you argue about helping more people in need, who cares of it's more than what they'll make" while Republicans said "Whoa, hold on, won't think have an impact in the labor markets that will make it harder to get people back to work".



We've got to do a better job of considering B. It's not heartless or mean to think of the consequences of these giveaways, even to those in need.

I hear you. I'm not sure where I stand on this, but I am generally in favor of making education easier and more accessible. I don't feel that way out of some sense of generosity, but rather because I believe it will more than pay for itself in future revenue for the government.

One more complicating factor to consider is people that didn't go to university at all. Just as the person that paid their loan back will have to help foot the bill for others, so will people that never even went. That kinda sucks for those that opted to go a different route in life because of the expense of education.

I am included in the group without student debt. I never borrowed for it and my husband paid his back already. Still, I wouldn't feel miffed about it...but that's probably only because I'd like to see education more accessible in general. It's easy to see the argument though, for sure.

[Wade Mulroy]

Originally Posted by rman112

Because they're businesses. Money is more important than ideology.

I suppose that's my point. The posturing about the evils of capitalism are a bit hypocritical when you're charging me $25,000 a semester to learn the lesson.

We seem to very much live in a "Do as I say, not as I do" society.

[BGT Masters]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

Okay, well I hope you have that attitude to people who declare bankruptcy on cars, houses, and many other things. Also, sometimes jobs change, life events happen, so on and so forth. You're asking a 17-18 year old to think their lives through and plan for every single instance that may happen to them.

You didn't fix anything, you just like to think you are standing on some moral high ground.

Moral high ground? Because I believe if you agree on a deal you should stick to it? It’s called being an adult. I’m for free stuff to people who honestly need it not to those who feel entitled to it moral high ground has nothing to do with it.

Those people that declare bankruptcy on physical items lose those items. If you declare bankruptcy on a degree you should have to forfeit the degree. If that’s the case I’d think somewhat differently.

[Wade Mulroy]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

I hear you. I'm not sure where I stand on this, but I am generally in favor of making education easier and more accessible. I don't feel that way out of some sense of generosity, but rather because I believe it will more than pay for itself in future revenue for the government.

One more complicating factor to consider is people that didn't go to university at all. Just as the person that paid their loan back will have to help foot the bill for others, so will people that never even went. That kinda sucks for those that opted to go a different route in life because of the expense of education.

I am included in the group without student debt. I never borrowed for it and my husband paid his back already. Still, I wouldn't feel miffed about it...but that's probably only because I'd like to see education more accessible in general. It's easy to see the argument though, for sure.

I think for me, it goes into the 'responsibility' lessons we learn as we mature. As NC stated, if you agree to loan terms you have an obligation to pay it back.

It's easy to argue that forgiving the burden will allow this money to be spent wisely within the economy and help promote the future growth of our country. It's also easy to see how an entire generation of young adults skipping the lessons on budgeting, saving, planning, etc. can have dangerous implications for the future. I also realize many of our large corporations also seem to have skipped these lessons

I realize our national debt is already in the drain and it may be a moot point in 2020; but as a Finance professional this whole idea causes a bit of concern. I completely understand the argument and the potential positives, but I can't help but be concerned.

[burke23]

I lean left but the concept of student loan / debt forgiveness is one I can’t easily get behind for all the reasons stated. Ideally state institutions would be cheaper and more affordable to the masses, but once you agree to take on the debt you need to incur to go there, that’s on you. No different than choosing to buy a car, house, etc. Ans some people are just bad with money and money making decisions. They really need to incorporate some “hard knocks” finance courses all through HS (and more basics before then). It’s pathetic how bad a large percentage of Americans are with personal finance. That includes myself early in life (multiple cash out refinances within 3 years of buying a house, etc), and my dad was smart and on top of things. I should have known better.

[Brobocop]

Originally Posted by BGT Masters

Moral high ground? Because I believe if you agree on a deal you should stick to it? It’s called being an adult. I’m for free stuff to people who honestly need it not to those who feel entitled to it moral high ground has nothing to do with it.

Those people that declare bankruptcy on physical items lose those items. If you declare bankruptcy on a degree you should have to forfeit the degree. If that’s the case I’d think somewhat differently.

100% not the case. Plenty of people declare bankruptcy on unsecured debts.

So because they can't repo a degree then you can't discharge student loans? Well, maybe if the rules were changed, the banks would make wiser loans. Maybe you'd have to prove your career path out to a relationship manager. It's bonkers to me that the only people with any kind of skin in the game are the kids taking these loans out. The schools get paid, the banks get paid, the government gets paid.

When you were 16/17 and people hounded you about going to college, you probably weren't thinking about interest rates, career fields, what jobs pay, so on and so forth. If you did, you are the vast minority. Parents, schools, and Congress have all failed this generation. Yet, they make out like nothing happens while getting to tell those kids "Pick yourself up by the bootstraps!!" while they stand there in the boots looking down on the kids.

Makes. No. Sense.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by burke23

I lean left but the concept of student loan / debt forgiveness is one I can’t easily get behind for all the reasons stated. Ideally state institutions would be cheaper and more affordable to the masses, but once you agree to take on the debt you need to incur to go there, that’s on you. No different than choosing to buy a car, house, etc. Ans some people are just bad with money and money making decisions. They really need to incorporate some “hard knocks” finance courses all through HS (and more basics before then). It’s pathetic how bad a large percentage of Americans are with personal finance. That includes myself early in life (multiple cash out refinances within 3 years of buying a house, etc), and my dad was smart and on top of things. I should have known better.

The sad reality is that if you truly wanted to reform the industry, it would negatively impact a *#*!ton of people in the industry, financially.

It's the same reason we're not reforming the police unions or the the other industries etc. etc. The people who would be hurt by the reform are the people in charge of the reform. And there's no way in hell they're changing anything!

[Onepocketj]

Originally Posted by Wade Mulroy

Not really. The workers negotiated their own pay rate and agreed to the terms without any duress. I fully support the farmer in the fact that he shouldn't be obligated to pay the original 10 at the rate of the new 10. Any of the workers can try to renegotiate or go somewhere else at any time.

However, I certainly don't blame the original 10 workers for being a bit miffed that they're getting paid less for the same work. That's just human nature.

That's where I'm at in all of this. As someone who made the necessary sacrifices and planning to ensure my wife and I enjoy our new life together without the burden of student loans, it's irritating if all the effort turns out to be for essentially "nothing." However, I don't expect the government to reward me for being responsible. It's true that I can both feel a bit irritated while also acknowledging that nothing additional is owed to me for my efforts.

It definitely wouldn't make everyone happy. Imagine all the people that took extra jobs and worked their ass off to pay back their loans and right after they pay them off, this happens. Mine are paid off long ago but it kind of irritates me as well. People just seem so entitled these days. When I see the % of young people's retirement plan that is "inherit money and house" it makes my head spin.

[Wade Mulroy]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

100% not the case. Plenty of people declare bankruptcy on unsecured debts.

So because they can't repo a degree then you can't discharge student loans? Well, maybe if the rules were changed, the banks would make wiser loans. Maybe you'd have to prove your career path out to a relationship manager. It's bonkers to me that the only people with any kind of skin in the game are the kids taking these loans out. The schools get paid, the banks get paid, the government gets paid.

When you were 16/17 and people hounded you about going to college, you probably weren't thinking about interest rates, career fields, what jobs pay, so on and so forth. If you did, you are the vast minority. Parents, schools, and Congress have all failed this generation. Yet, they make out like nothing happens while getting to tell those kids "Pick yourself up by the bootstraps!!" while they stand there in the boots looking down on the kids.

Makes. No. Sense.

I grew up in rural southern Illinois and can attest that I never took any type of accounting, finance, or rudimentary budgeting courses while in middle or high school. That was 10 years ago and I'm not sure if that is the norm everywhere, but it's crazy to me that any high school wouldn't require its students to learn some type of basic understanding of money, loans, budgeting, etc. prior to turning 18. It really is frightening the amount of individuals (not just teens) that would have no idea how to balance a checkbook.

Yes, I know balancing a checkbook isn't a thing anymore, but you get the point

[rcmb3220]

Good news about Trump withdrawing troops. Good job, now please abdicate.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by rcmb3220

Good news about Trump withdrawing troops. Good job, now please abdicate.

Two months four days. Still work to be done.

Three things on the docket.

(1) Finding a way to get Saudi Arabia on board w/ the Israeli peace policy. Get them in and Biden can't #*!* it up by going back to Iran.
(2) Hardline policies on China.
(3) Finish off a stimulus package. It won't be as extensive as the prior ones but it should have a focus on helping those in industries that have forever changed /closed. We've got to do something to help those whose industries are demolished to get going again somewhere else.

[Wade Mulroy]

Originally Posted by Onepocketj

It definitely wouldn't make everyone happy. Imagine all the people that took extra jobs and worked their ass off to pay back their loans and right after they pay them off, this happens. Mine are paid off long ago but it kind of irritates me as well. People just seem so entitled these days. When I see the % of young people's retirement plan that is "inherit money and house" it makes my head spin.

It is crazy. I know plenty of people that have no interest in participating with their employer's 401k program simply because it lowers their take-home pay and they don't understand where the money is going. They're banking on social security to get through retirement and have no concept of compound interest or pre/post-tax retirement accounts.

It all just makes me sad we couldn't get Jo Jorgensen in office to enact her plan to make social security contributions optional and instead have it go towards an IRA

[Ray27Ray52]

I don't have a retirement plan. Don't plan on living long enough to ever collect SS or need the money anyhow.

[MIRRABB]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Two months four days. Still work to be done.

Three things on the docket.

(1) Finding a way to get Saudi Arabia on board w/ the Israeli peace policy. Get them in and Biden can't #*!* it up by going back to Iran.
(2) Hardline policies on China.
(3) Finish off a stimulus package. It won't be as extensive as the prior ones but it should have a focus on helping those in industries that have forever changed /closed. We've got to do something to help those whose industries are demolished to get going again somewhere else.

No, no, yes!

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by Wade Mulroy

It all just makes me sad we couldn't get Jo Jorgensen in office to enact her plan to make social security contributions optional and instead have it go towards an IRA

The country had a chance at this when Bush proposed it in 2005 ... and it failed. Republican donors spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to get this very idea across the political spectrum and it was a terrible waste of money.
The '05 Bush SOTU was heavy in Social Security reform and IRA contributions / savings accounts / individual choice.

Never had a chance. Ironically, with just six days to go in his presidency, Bush said his greatest achievement (sad really) was getting the debate started about SS reform.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by MIRRABB

No, no, yes!

Is Middle Eastern peace bad for you? Loaded up in Raytheon stock perhaps?