-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Green New Deal
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
- Status
SDRick
Active Member
Good catch, Navient holds the largest portfolio of education loans insurance or guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan Program, as well as the largest portfolio of Private Education Loans.
So while they hold or service about $140 billion of student debt and is a GSE (Government-Sponsored Enterprise) created by Congress in 1973, (Wells holds about $11 billion) the federal side of the student loan ledger outstanding is $1.43 trillion. So for better or worse, while there are vestiges of private student loans and loan servicing providers they are not competitive with the federal programs.
Eerily similar to what happened in the housing fiasco over a decade ago...The government set the incentives with the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) basically forcing the banks to make loans under less stringent underwriting guidelines for the truly noble cause of increasing homeownership. How does that old adage go, no good deed goes unpunished?
juliusa
Active Member
Don't forget payday loans, credit card loans, car loans, business loans, and mortgages.
Let's make loaning money illegal. People and businesses should not be allowed to borrow money to get things they don't have the money for. Let's stop all investment.
I think colleges should be making student loans - they should be guaranteeing success based on the product they are producing. Why should someone else to that?
Government paying for college is a giveaway to the rich. I think about 40% of people graduate college, generally from the higher income households. So let's make the other 60% pay for their college partying??
Last edited:
I love the idea of the colleges funding the education, but unfortunately that comes with its own share of problems. The ones that come to mind are that very few universities can afford that initial period of transition, and it effectively makes new colleges or universities impossible. But there should be some hook back into their education, which is intended to improve outcomes.
I doubt that government securing loans for college is truly a giveaway to the rich, though. I have yet to look at the overall statistics, but I know my experience was that my family had absolutely no wealth. My only way to attend college was to take out Stafford loans for the entirety of my education. I paid those back, and have paid enough taxes to help finance a lot more students thanks to that education.
juliusa
Active Member
Agree securing loans is not a giveaway to the rich because the rich that get loans are likely to pay them back.
I think taxpayer-funded college is a giveaway for the more affluent since they are more likely to go to college. I don't think it is right that the guy that apprentices as an electrician is paying taxes for someone else to go to college.
I just put out a scenario ot illustrate the concept - someone smarter than I would have to work out the exact details to address some of the problems you brought up. Perhaps a transition over 20 years for colleges that need it, where they assume increasing responsibility. Students going to colleges with endowments would be prohibited from taking out government-guaranteed student loans and would instead have to get a loan either directly from the college, or from a bank with the loan secured by the endowment.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
juliusa
Active Member
No, I do not. I do not think siezing assets is consitutional nor do I think it is practical to value assets every year . We should stick to taxing income and expenditures. Raising taxes on the super rich is another question - I support progressive taxation and making our current system more progressive (raising taxes on the rich and super rich) is worth considering.
Don't be fooled by the politicians' nonsense about specific taxes being linked to specific expenditures. If an electrician pays federal income (or proposed wealth) tax, then they are funding ALL goverment expenditures (college education) that are supported by those federal taxes.
"Honey, I'm going to Las Vegas and partying with my friends this weekend. But don't worry, it is not coming out of our family income - I got a raise at work and am using that."
Workers are creating massive wealth. Why are corporations hoarding it all?
Workers are creating massive wealth. Why are corporations hoarding it all? | Cory Booker
The very nature of the employer-employee relationship has changed to maximize value for one at the expense of the other. Years ago, the person who cleaned your office or fixed your computer was an employee of the same company – participating in workplace benefits and theoretically able to rise in the ranks.
No longer.
Today, companies – like the airlines that Carol provides catering services for – contract out much of their workforce, setting off a race to the bottom as a constellation of intermediaries compete for the lowest bid.
Firms further exercise their power by embracing anticompetitive practices that keep workers stuck and wages down. Take the proliferation of non-compete agreements, covenants between employer and employee that restrict where the employee can work next. Historically, these agreements have been limited to workers with highly specialized training or possessing trade secrets; today one in seven workers earning less than $40,000 a year reports having signed one – including, until recently, sandwich-makers at Jimmy Johns and line cooks at Burger King. Employers do it because they can. A recent report found that of all workers asked to sign a non-compete clause, two-thirds reported doing so because they had no other job offers.
Workers are creating massive wealth. Why are corporations hoarding it all? | Cory Booker
The very nature of the employer-employee relationship has changed to maximize value for one at the expense of the other. Years ago, the person who cleaned your office or fixed your computer was an employee of the same company – participating in workplace benefits and theoretically able to rise in the ranks.
No longer.
Today, companies – like the airlines that Carol provides catering services for – contract out much of their workforce, setting off a race to the bottom as a constellation of intermediaries compete for the lowest bid.
Firms further exercise their power by embracing anticompetitive practices that keep workers stuck and wages down. Take the proliferation of non-compete agreements, covenants between employer and employee that restrict where the employee can work next. Historically, these agreements have been limited to workers with highly specialized training or possessing trade secrets; today one in seven workers earning less than $40,000 a year reports having signed one – including, until recently, sandwich-makers at Jimmy Johns and line cooks at Burger King. Employers do it because they can. A recent report found that of all workers asked to sign a non-compete clause, two-thirds reported doing so because they had no other job offers.
Capitalism is failing. People want a job with a decent wage – why is that so hard?
Capitalism is failing workers. People want a job with a decent wage – why is that so hard? | Richard Reeves
There are many variants of capitalism, of course, from welfarist Scandinavia through Anglo-Saxon laissez-faire to Chinese market statism. But the trend seemed pretty clear. Capitalism works. And it works, most importantly, for workers.
But now? Over the last decade, the logic of markets and the workings of capitalism have been intensely questioned and challenged, both from the populist right and the socialist left. Young Americans and supporters of the Democratic party are now more enthusiastic about socialism than capitalism (by 6% and 10% margins, respectively). Leading candidates now proudly describe themselves as socialists – unthinkable just a few years ago. (Whether they are in fact socialists by any sensible definition of the term is of course another matter.)
But the Great Recession also shone a light on trends long predating the downturn, not least in terms of stagnant wage growth for so many workers. By comparison with the postwar years, economic growth has been slow for the last few decades. At the same time, the transmission mechanism linking economic growth to the wages of workers appears to have broken. The share of income going to workers has dropped sharply, from 65% in 1974 to 57% in 2017.
Capitalism is failing workers. People want a job with a decent wage – why is that so hard? | Richard Reeves
There are many variants of capitalism, of course, from welfarist Scandinavia through Anglo-Saxon laissez-faire to Chinese market statism. But the trend seemed pretty clear. Capitalism works. And it works, most importantly, for workers.
But now? Over the last decade, the logic of markets and the workings of capitalism have been intensely questioned and challenged, both from the populist right and the socialist left. Young Americans and supporters of the Democratic party are now more enthusiastic about socialism than capitalism (by 6% and 10% margins, respectively). Leading candidates now proudly describe themselves as socialists – unthinkable just a few years ago. (Whether they are in fact socialists by any sensible definition of the term is of course another matter.)
But the Great Recession also shone a light on trends long predating the downturn, not least in terms of stagnant wage growth for so many workers. By comparison with the postwar years, economic growth has been slow for the last few decades. At the same time, the transmission mechanism linking economic growth to the wages of workers appears to have broken. The share of income going to workers has dropped sharply, from 65% in 1974 to 57% in 2017.
juliusa
Active Member
It will be interesting to see if there is a shift in sentiment based on better job prospects and rising wages in the less-taxed and less-regulated economy compared to the past decade.
It will be interesting to see if this changes if they lose in 2020. Do the politicians really subscribe to this, or is it just something they are hitching their wagon to? (I know Bernie is true believer - but the others?)
You're making an assumption that there is a cause and effect between those two things. Evidence I've seen doesn't support higher wages as a result of lower taxes.
Most of the savings from the tax cuts went to stock buy backs which enriched the owners. Wages didn't rise.
juliusa
Active Member
You're making an assumption that I'm making an assumption.
We are in a lower-tax lower-regulation economy than the prior decade.
We are seeing wages rise.
Causal? Difficult to prove, but I think there is a general consensus that lower taxes and lower regulations lead to growth, and growth leads to lower unemployment, and lower unemployment leads to higher wages. A party that could stay on message could make the case.
But "it's the economy, stupid" and politics - perception is reality, whether it is causal or not.
juliusa
Active Member
Wages and salaries jump by 3.1%, highest level in a decade
You can make the case that wages did not rise as a result of the tax cut, but I don't think you can make the case they did not rise.
Robert Reich has some insight into our socialism.
Robert Reich: Socialism for the Rich, Capitalism for the Rest
Someone should alert him that America is now a hotbed of socialism. But it’s socialism for the rich. Everyone else is treated to harsh capitalism.
In the conservative mind, socialism means getting something for doing nothing. This pretty much describes General Motors’ receipt of $600 million in federal contracts, plus $500 million in tax breaks, since Trump took office.
Some of this corporate welfare has gone into the pockets of GM executives. Chairman and CEO Mary Barra raked in almost $22 million in total compensation in 2017 alone.
But GM employees are subject to harsh capitalism. GM is planning to lay off more than 14,000 workers and close three assembly plants and two component factories in North America by the end of 2019.
The nation’s largest banks saved $21 billion last year thanks to Trump’s tax cuts, some of which went into massive bonuses for bank executives. On the other hand, thousands of lower-level bank employees got a big dose of harsh capitalism. They lost their jobs.
Banks that are too big to fail—courtesy of the 2008 bank bailout—enjoy a hidden subsidy of about $83 billion a year because they have the backing of the federal government. This hidden subsidy gives giant Wall Street banks a huge advantage.
Robert Reich: Socialism for the Rich, Capitalism for the Rest
Someone should alert him that America is now a hotbed of socialism. But it’s socialism for the rich. Everyone else is treated to harsh capitalism.
In the conservative mind, socialism means getting something for doing nothing. This pretty much describes General Motors’ receipt of $600 million in federal contracts, plus $500 million in tax breaks, since Trump took office.
Some of this corporate welfare has gone into the pockets of GM executives. Chairman and CEO Mary Barra raked in almost $22 million in total compensation in 2017 alone.
But GM employees are subject to harsh capitalism. GM is planning to lay off more than 14,000 workers and close three assembly plants and two component factories in North America by the end of 2019.
The nation’s largest banks saved $21 billion last year thanks to Trump’s tax cuts, some of which went into massive bonuses for bank executives. On the other hand, thousands of lower-level bank employees got a big dose of harsh capitalism. They lost their jobs.
Banks that are too big to fail—courtesy of the 2008 bank bailout—enjoy a hidden subsidy of about $83 billion a year because they have the backing of the federal government. This hidden subsidy gives giant Wall Street banks a huge advantage.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
It's a tax and it's in the 16th amendment. The bulk of the wealth of most people that have >$50M is in equities.... takes ~10s to see how much that's worth...
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
It's really impossible to cut the crap about your true intentions isn't it? I love how people that really want the rich to get richer and the poor to get trampled always default to attempting to molest the facts around the status quo somehow being better for the poor.....
Last edited:
juliusa
Active Member
So you say. Others say the government cannot sieze private property - even if it is just 2% per year. It will face a constitutional challenge - regardless, I don't think it is right for the government to confiscate property.
Not if they are going to tax it they won't. They'll put it in real estate, sports teams, or other difficult-to-value assets. Will guarantee employment for lots of accountants and tax attorneys.
Besides, Buffet and Gates will simply give away most of their fortunes to charity now, instead of at death. Same with all the other uber-wealthy that have taken the "Buffet Pledge".
So between shifting assets where they can hide the value, and giving the assets away, the tax will raise much less than the idiots that are doing static modeling think.
Last edited:
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
So.... should we abolish property taxes? How is that any different?
Economic inequality is a lot like water... you need a little to function but too much destroys everything. We're now at a record flood stage...... what's your plan for averting disaster? I mean.... my annual income is higher and I pay fewer taxes for doing absolutely nothing.... literally nothing than some poor schmuck working 60 hours/wk at two jobs.... that's bonkers and completely unsustainable.
juliusa
Active Member
juliusa
Active Member
I think taking 40% of wealth from the super-rich at death is enough.
- Status
Similar threads
