Zoomer Urges POS Biden to Forgive Student Debt via Exec Order...

[SkyDekker 1,123]

I think the US has enough people indiscriminately wanting to kill other people. Probably could do to put some money into actual education, so that people see more than killing as a solution.

Edited December 7, 2020 by SkyDekker

[JoeWeber 2,299]

6 hours ago, DougH said:

I tend to agree with you on these points. Forgiving these loans outright is simply subsidizing inflated tuition, and sticking tax payers with the bill. It is regressive since the majority of tax payers don't even have college degrees or the higher earning potential that a degree generally allows one to achieve.

It doesn't solve the problem of inflated tuition, underselling the trades to our youth, etc.

Something income based that set payments as a percentage of your disposable income would be a little bit better. There should be no immediate loan forgiveness, peg the payments to income and have them continue until retirement age.

It still leaves a sour taste in my mouth, being a responsible borrower who paid off my loans in full over the last 13 years, and it should leave a sour taste in the mouth of non college graduates, but at least it isn't a instant freebie.

 

Agreed. Outright forgiveness of student loans is simply unfair. Let's change the system, sure. But those who borrowed it should pay it back. 

[SkyDekker 1,123]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Agreed. Outright forgiveness of student loans is simply unfair. Let's change the system, sure. But those who borrowed it should pay it back. 

Why? Lots of corporations have been bailed out. Trump has made a business out of refusing to repay loans and then using historical losses to not have to pay taxes on these "windfalls". You elected him president. But, god forbid a student gets a loan forgiven. What a horrible example that will set.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

25 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Why? Lots of corporations have been bailed out. Trump has made a business out of refusing to repay loans and then using historical losses to not have to pay taxes on these "windfalls". You elected him president. But, god forbid a student gets a loan forgiven. What a horrible example that will set.

Not your business. Not your tax bill. Not your country. That's why.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

6 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Not your business. Not your tax bill. Not your country. That's why.

Well thought out!

Edited December 8, 2020 by SkyDekker

[gowlerk 1,914]

2 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Not your business. Not your tax bill. Not your country. That's why.

All true Joe, but completely dodges the question. Although I will say that as an investor in many companies listed on the mighty NY Exchange, most Canadians are paying Uncle Sam some good old USD.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

7 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Well thought out!

Maybe try it with less of a high handed hectoring tone and you'll get a more thoughtful response. "You elected him President" Really? He was elected but I didn't vote for him. My opinion on school loan forgiveness is my own, not the nations. Just back it down a bit. 

[SkyDekker 1,123]

6 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

"You elected him President" Really?

Your country, your election, your business, your president.

Edited December 8, 2020 by SkyDekker

[JoeWeber 2,299]

15 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

All true Joe, but completely dodges the question. Although I will say that as an investor in many companies listed on the mighty NY Exchange, most Canadians are paying Uncle Sam some good old USD.

True. Also true is that there are many Stock Exchanges including one in Toronto. No question was dodged. Skydekker asked "why" and then railed. 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

9 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Your country, your election, your business, your president.

It's your good fortune, I guess, that there is a skydiving forum that gives you a platform to bang on the US. Your post was just an attack as per usual. I simply dismissed it. Have you ever considered starting your own thread here so we can hammer on you? It's scary but I'm sure you are brave enough.

Edited December 8, 2020 by JoeWeber

[gowlerk 1,914]

5 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Also true is that there are many Stock Exchanges including one in Toronto.

I keep about 30% there. As a hedge against currency fluctuations. And some virtue signalling I guess.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

4 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

It's your good fortune, I guess, that there is a skydiving forum that gives you a platform to bang on the US. Your post was just an attack as per usual. I simply dismissed it. Have you ever considered starting your own thread here so we can hammer on you? It's scary but I'm sure you are brave enough.

There is one on the front page. I think you got upset about that one too, cause I indicated the US was a Banana Republic. Threat is now filled with evidence of such. I believe you even stated that you were wrong jumping down my throat so quickly. 

I was simply asking why country that happily gives money to rich people shouldn't provide money to students in your opinion. Sounds like you don't want to put too much thought into that though. More of the: I've got mine, don't really care about the rest.

Edited December 8, 2020 by SkyDekker

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

There is one on the front page.

 

I was simply asking why country that happily gives money to rich people shouldn't provide money to students in your opinion.

"Happily"? It's vastly more complex as you know. But at it's most basic level it's because I believe in the sanctity of contract law in a capitalist economy. A bargain struck should remain so. If I contract to buy an airplane, and the depreciation regime subsequently changes, the contract between the parties must remain unchanged no matter if the tax consequences of the respective contracting parties change. That's why. It's not about right or wrong or what I or you would do it's about not taking one more step towards becoming a Banana Republic.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

6 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

But at it's most basic level it's because I believe in the sanctity of contract law in a capitalist economy. A bargain struck should remain so.

One of the fundamental underpinnings of contract law is the ability to amend contracts. Nobody is advocating for a one-sided change of this contract, but rather mutual agreement to amend the terms.

The concept of not ever being able to amend contracts would actually lead to indebted servitude. Hence, the ability to claim bankruptcy.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

25 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

One of the fundamental underpinnings of contract law is the ability to amend contracts. Nobody is advocating for a one-sided change of this contract, but rather mutual agreement to amend the terms.

The concept of not ever being able to amend contracts would actually lead to indebted servitude. Hence, the ability to claim bankruptcy.

No it's not. No one signs a contract in the real world counting on an amendment if things change.  Although I suppose being on the receiving end of a cancelled contract might be framed as a mutual agreement. Bankruptcy is an outlier event, or should be, not an expectation of the parties. That's why you need to be careful about who you contract with and why if the risk is high the terms are harsh.  

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

19 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

No it's not. No one signs a contract in the real world counting on an amendment if things change.  Although I suppose being on the receiving end of a cancelled contract might be framed as a mutual agreement. Bankruptcy is an outlier event, or should be, not an expectation of the parties. That's why you need to be careful about who you contract with and why if the risk is high the terms are harsh.  

Hi Joe,

Re:  'No one signs a contract in the real world counting on an amendment if things change.'

Having spent 30 yrs in Contract Management for the federal gov't., I consider that statement to be about 180* off.  IMO everyone ( with any actual contract experience ) signs contracts expecting amendments if things change.  And, that means all parties to said contract.

The Gene Autry exception came to mind first.  I cannot tell you how many contracts I worked on that were amended because things changed; LOTS.

Jerry Baumchen

 

Edited December 8, 2020 by JerryBaumchen

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Having spent 30 yrs in Contract Management for the federal gov't., I consider that statement to be about 180* off. 

Agreed.  The instant a contract was signed with a former employer, there was a big celebration - and the next day the contracts group started trying to amend it.

"You said you wanted 43 aircraft.  But you didn't allow for enough spares.  Those hydraulic pumps have been shown to need a lot more maintenance than we expected."
"You know if you round up to 50 aircraft we could throw those spares in for free."
"The wing spars have a 20 year expected life span, but if you add the life-extension project onto this contract, we could guarantee them for 30.  You don't want to have aircraft down suddenly do you?"

[billvon 2,400]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

"Happily"? It's vastly more complex as you know. But at it's most basic level it's because I believe in the sanctity of contract law in a capitalist economy. A bargain struck should remain so. If I contract to buy an airplane, and the depreciation regime subsequently changes, the contract between the parties must remain unchanged no matter if the tax consequences of the respective contracting parties change. 

I suspect things like this may happen occasionally:

"Hey this AD wasn't complied with!"
"Well, dude, you had the logs and your mechanic was OK with it."
"But you said all AD's were complied with."
"All the AD's that I KNEW about were complied with.  That's something that's not on the MEL so you don't need it, and we never got the notice anyway."
"Look, you said the AD's were complied with.  It's gonna cost me 20 grand to get this fixed.  You better take 20 grand off the price."
"No way.  It's not required for flight.  I'll take 5000 off and that's it."

Etc etc.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

5 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

Re:  'No one signs a contract in the real world counting on an amendment if things change.'

Having spent 30 yrs in Contract Management for the federal gov't., I consider that statement to be about 180* off.  IMO everyone ( with any actual contract experience ) signs contracts expecting amendments if things change.  And, that means all parties to said contract.

The Gene Autry exception came to mind first.  I cannot tell you how many contracts I worked on that were amended because things changed; LOTS.

Jerry Baumchen

 

Government and institutional contracts often anticipate often changes. You wouldn't expect the same, nor would it be written into, your home mortgage, automobile, land sale, home equity, personal loan or, in my example, an aircraft contract.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

4 hours ago, billvon said:

I suspect things like this may happen occasionally:

"Hey this AD wasn't complied with!"
"Well, dude, you had the logs and your mechanic was OK with it."
"But you said all AD's were complied with."
"All the AD's that I KNEW about were complied with.  That's something that's not on the MEL so you don't need it, and we never got the notice anyway."
"Look, you said the AD's were complied with.  It's gonna cost me 20 grand to get this fixed.  You better take 20 grand off the price."
"No way.  It's not required for flight.  I'll take 5000 off and that's it."

Etc etc.

In happy land it might. Aircraft Maintenance is one of those things where you accept the end price is unknown and the only prices-usually known-upfront are the flat rate charges. They aren't money loans. Huge difference.

[wmw999 2,123]

3 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Government and institutional contracts often anticipate often changes. You wouldn't expect the same, nor would it be written into, your home mortgage, automobile, land sale, home equity, personal loan or, in my example, an aircraft contract.

Except that nearly all of these major purchases have backouts (sometimes at cost) written into them in law. You can back out of a house purchase up to the closing; you can back out of a car purchase up to signing on the dotted line, and even then there are usually either stated or implied warranties by law (or a clear "as is.")

Once the bad faith is discovered, that leaves the contract open to being renegotiated in anything I've ever done.

Wendy P.

[DougH 270]

12 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Why? Lots of corporations have been bailed out. Trump has made a business out of refusing to repay loans and then using historical losses to not have to pay taxes on these "windfalls". You elected him president. But, god forbid a student gets a loan forgiven. What a horrible example that will set.

There is a different moral hazard when you compare defaulting on a loan to a business entity, versus paying off an individuals debt with collective taxpayer funds.

One stiffs a business that was a willing party to the transaction, the other burdens an individual that had nothing to do with the loan, and didn't benefit from it in any way.

I say change the laws that protect student loan debt from bankruptcy. Make the schools guarantee the loans through some mechanism so they have skin in the game. I bet that curtails costs and results in more thoughtful lending practices.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

Except that nearly all of these major purchases have backouts (sometimes at cost) written into them in law. You can back out of a house purchase up to the closing; you can back out of a car purchase up to signing on the dotted line, and even then there are usually either stated or implied warranties by law (or a clear "as is.")

Once the bad faith is discovered, that leaves the contract open to being renegotiated in anything I've ever done.

Wendy P.

Oh, come on you guy's. The loan's have closed and if the borrower is getting something "as is" they should have studied harder. Last year in the Islands I met a lady that was carrying $320K USD student debt (her number) after fiddling around through a Caribbean Veterinary school until she got her Doctors. Then she met a dude and decided that sailing around on his boat for several years was a better idea than going to work and paying off the loans. She was seriously hoping she could just find a way to discharge it all. Screw that noise. 

[gowlerk 1,914]

3 minutes ago, DougH said:

There is a different moral hazard when you compare defaulting on a loan to a business entity, versus paying off an individuals debt with collective taxpayer funds.

 

3 minutes ago, DougH said:

I say change the laws that protect student loan debt from bankruptcy.

These ideas are somewhat contradictory. It does nothing to remove moral hazard, it merely shifts the cost. And likely not by much as the taxpayer guarantees many of those loans. Education has been moving from something for a more elite layer of society to more of a requirement in life while at the same time the schools have moved from public institutions toward private corporations. There is a thorny problem here with the high levels of debt and I have seen no good ways of solving it in any way that would be fair.

[gowlerk 1,914]

3 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Oh, come on you guy's. The loan's have closed and if the borrower is getting something "as is" they should have studied harder. Last year in the Islands I met a lady that was carrying $320K USD student debt (her number) after fiddling around through a Caribbean Veterinary school until she got her Doctors. Then she met a dude and decided that sailing around on his boat for several years was a better idea than going to work and paying off the loans. She was seriously hoping she could just find a way to discharge it all. Screw that noise. 

That explains a lot. You are relying on a personally known anecdote to inform yourself about a very complex problem facing millions of people. You are not wrong, but it only goes so far.