This is where this fails. A minority hold the majority of the wealth, the middle and lower class hold a tiny minority, assume taxes are "equal" for everyone, at a percentage rate, well, you can see where this falls apart, if not, I will gladly explain it.
I fully support teacher unions, and I also support affordable and accessible education for all students looking to further there success in life.
It's a simple concept. If you want a service you need to be able to afford the service at what it costs. The cost should be equal between all of those desiring to purpose the service as what they buying is the same. It's not hard to understand and only the government wants to run on a different principle.
You can't have both? :roll:
I am talking about taxes here, not the cost of services?..
Than let us advocate for both of these things.
I actually agree on this point, but it's the education system as a whole that needs to be reworked, drilling information into children so they can fill in bubbles to determine how much funding a school gets is preposterous.The teachers have gotten a pass long enough, time to fire the incompetent ones immediately. Education is about the children, not the teachers.
If you think democrats care more about the poor and middle class in this country than the republicans do then you are sadly mistaken.
The people who establish GOP policy are most likely believers in the concept of the Talented Tenth - the idea that only about 10% of the population is really worth a damn and is needed to keep everything together. While the term is normally associated with W.E.B. DuBois and African Americans - it applies to those who look at most of the masses as simply fodder for their machine.
As such, they want to help that upper tenth as much as possible in the belief that if the upper tenth is in good shape - then the rest will fall into place.
I actually agree on this point, but it's the education system as a whole that needs to be reworked, drilling information into children so they can fill in bubbles to determine how much funding a school gets is preposterous.
maybe just maybe you should read the OP
i quoted it DIRECTLY from there
How is refinancing a loan making the rich pay for it?
Did you even read the article?
Did you even read my question? Do I have to spoon feed such a simple inquiry to you?
Did you read what I quoted? I already spoon feed you the relevant material, so I'm not sure what else I can do for you.
How is refinancing a loan making the rich pay for the loan?
Maybe just maybe you should read the question that I asked carefully. Let's try it again
Maybe just maybe you should read the question that I asked carefully. Let's try it again
Well it shouldn't theoretically. The interest rate doubled on student loans in the summer of 2013 and Congress didn't do anything about it until the refinance suggestion came up last year. But in the legislation the Democratic controlled Senate introduced last fall, they insisted that a 30% surtax be paid by all upper income wage earners to offset the loss of interest revenue the government would experience due to refinancing at a lower interest rate.
If the government needs revenue, it should not be getting it from people trying to pay off student debt. The proceeds from borrowers payments should go to repay the loans only and not fund the government.
Well...that depends
Who owns the loan?
If the government actually held the paper, then it is an entry on the federal budget
If the government is just the guarantor, then the BANKS who actually own the paper, need to be made whole
the program that is being touted will have a cost associated with it....making those institutions whole
in the OP, the cost will be paid by rich people using the Buffett rule
now....does that answer your question?
You do realize that people in their thirties and even forties are still paying off their student loans, right?
If the government needs revenue, it should not be getting it from people trying to pay off student debt. The proceeds from borrowers payments should go to repay the loans only and not fund the government.
Well you'll have to take that up with the U.S. Congress as they are the ones who set the rules, who allowed the interest rates to double in 2013, and who failed to fix that in 2014. I don't really have any problem with the government being in the student loan business as that is one government program that does actually pay for itself. But I tend to agree with you that it should ONLY pay for itself with maybe just a little bit left over to cover an unusually large number of defaults. And in my libertarian soul the government should be in that business only if the banks don't want it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?