Congress Plans to Eliminate Subsidized Stafford Loans for Graduate School

[roubs]

http://blogs.forbes.com/janetnovack...ing-plans-take-aim-at-graduate-student-loans/

IMO, we can blame both parties obsession with deficits for this. Guess we are all dancing to the Tea Party tune these days.

If I can calculate, at 6.8% interest this would mean a loan bill that is $8,600 higher at the end of 5 years.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[2012PhD]

http://blogs.forbes.com/janetnovack...ing-plans-take-aim-at-graduate-student-loans/

IMO, we can blame both parties obsession with deficits for this. Guess we are all dancing to the Tea Party tune these days.

If I can calculate, at 6.8% interest this would mean a loan bill that is $8,600 higher at the end of 5 years.

Another reason not to go for unfunded programs. Now that the tea party is dominating, there will be more of this to come. Imagine having your PsyD loans accumulating for 6 years while you are in training? Yikes.

Btw, universities are free in Germany and way way cheaper in most developed countries (e.g. Canada, Scotland, EU countries). My friend who studied at McGill paid 1/3 what she would have paid in a U.S. university. We should be encouraging prospective applicants to go out of the country for training!

 

[edieb]

http://blogs.forbes.com/janetnovack...ing-plans-take-aim-at-graduate-student-loans/

IMO, we can blame both parties obsession with deficits for this. Guess we are all dancing to the Tea Party tune these days.

If I can calculate, at 6.8% interest this would mean a loan bill that is $8,600 higher at the end of 5 years.

I really think it is a good idea to eliminate these loans. Schools are really taking advantage of the student loan system by raising tuition to the maximum amount prospective students can get loans for, taking more and more students to increase profits, etc.

In addition, some students' choice of degree is very poor and the likelihood they will default on student loans later is high. I don't want to subsidize a student choosing to receive their Ph.D. in anthropology or literature seeing that there are no jobs for majors with these degrees.

 

[erg923]

I'm think my wife and I are going to run all our credit cards up to their limit...and when we can't pay those, I'm going to insist the banks increase my credit limit. Now, where in the world would I get this idea from?

 

[cara susanna]

I hope this makes professional schools take a hit.

 

[roubs]

I'm think my wife and I are going to run all our credit cards up to their limit...and when we can't pay those, I'm going to insist the banks increase my credit limit. Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Politicians including Obama are *****s for pushing this comparison of the United States of America to your own household. A comparison with good face validity and no other kind.

 

[roubs]

I hope this makes professional schools take a hit.

I wouldn't mind if this makes professional students be more realistic about loans. Even as liberal I feel like Psy.D. students relying on IBR to cover them is gaming the system at the expense of the taxpayer. This should be a wakeup call to any professional students who think they can just rely on IBR to save them. Subsidized stafford: Here today, gone tomorrow. IBR, next?

It is still bass ackwards in terms of budget priorities.

 

[PerhapsMaybeOk]

luckily im almost done. and apple stock just topped 400 so...

 

[thepug]

I really think it is a good idea to eliminate these loans. Schools are really taking advantage of the student loan system by raising tuition to the maximum amount prospective students can get loans for, taking more and more students to increase profits, etc.

In addition, some students' choice of degree is very poor and the likelihood they will default on student loans later is high. I don't want to subsidize a student choosing to receive their Ph.D. in anthropology or literature seeing that there are no jobs for majors with these degrees.

Wow easy for you to say Mr. 5+ member. What about people just about to start a program? The gov has already started targeting career colleges because of the high default rates, if anything the problem is already correcting itself. To get rid of subsidized loans would add another 25k to a clinical students bottom line after 5 years.

Both sides want to take this money and put it directly into Pell Grants so minority/low income students can get degrees in African American Studies and Advertising, degrees with ridiculously low employment rates post-grad. What the hell. In 50 years when half the U.S. population is not White the gov will look really silly for conducting this indignant social experiment.

Apparently if some occupying conquistador sir named Rodriguez broke into your great great great great Central American grandmother's clay hut 500 years ago and raped her YOU get a Pell Grant. I'm sorry I just don't see a significant difference between an Anglo American and a Hispanic American.

Just because one can speak broken Spanish learned from their early childhood and recognizes some esoteric dish at a Mexican restaurant does not really imply diversity. Diversity is a Russian, Chinese, Pakistani, or Jewish student. A Mexican ex-patriot, diverse? You Bet!

 

[erg923]

Thank you for educating me on the black and white nature of "diversity." You might wanna tone-down the racism before you get banned.

 

[thepug]

You might wanna tone-down the racism before you get banned.

What the African American Studies bit? How is that racist? It's a popular major among minorities and it was clearly for comedic effect and it being paired with Advertising implies the point was that these majors are those which have created the gov's desire to get rid of subsidized loans, first at the graduate level. As for the other bit, that's history muchachito.

I don't see any element of supremacy in my post, if anything I said two "races" were equivalent.

My gripe is with aid going to people on the basis of gov defined race and not exclusively financial need. This is relevant because this is related to the motion to do away with sub. loans.

Offending your obtuse sympathies does not imply the message was racist. Calling me a racist however...hurts my feelings

As for the warning about being banned...oh definitely. Yo concordo plenamente contigo.

Certainly coming for a different family background is diversity, but I find much more diversity among international students. Why? Because they come from a different universe.

 

[roubs]

In my parents generation growing up working class and going to undergrad meant being scoffed at by the entire neighborhood because you were clearly doing something useless instead of working with your hands and getting a real paycheck at age 18.

Just because the humanities are over saturated (as we are) does not give you an excuse to mock people for wanting to go there. The Ph.D. level professions should start being tough and honest about gatekeeping instead of thinking of cheap TA labor and keeping their own heads in the sand about market forces.

Oh and I can understand the "Well I'm done, phew." response but honestly that attitude is what keeps stuff like the internship crisis going. People barely squeak by, things keep getting worse and once we get through it we lose all empathy and willingness to act on behalf of the people about to inherit the ****storm.

 

[thepug]

In my parents generation growing up working class and going to undergrad meant being scoffed at by the entire neighborhood because you were clearly doing something useless instead of working with your hands and getting a real paycheck at age 18.

Just because the humanities are over saturated (as we are) does not give you an excuse to mock people for wanting to go there. The Ph.D. level professions should start being tough and honest about gatekeeping instead of thinking of cheap TA labor and keeping their own heads in the sand about market forces.

Sigh... Humanities tend to be more popular among minority students, specifically public policy (http://blackbloggers.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/study-shows-college-majors-are-segregated-by-race/)

These majors have sig. unemployment and significantly lower earning potential than some science majors. Is that not what this whole spending cut is trying to prevent? But lets not forget that mechanical and nuclear engineering also suffer from high unemployment. Contrary to popular opinion, people with English Lit degrees actually have better employment chances than people with a B.S. in chem according to the Daily Beast.

The problem is colleges and universities putting out 80k students a year for a field that maybe has 70k total spots at any given time, most all of which occupied. Undergrad is like high school now.

This whole spending cut is really a strong statement. The gov is now openly devaluing the humanities, something they have been doing with disproportionate grant funding for decades now.

 

[thepug]

Oh and I can understand the "Well I'm done, phew." response but honestly that attitude is what keeps stuff like the internship crisis going. People barely squeak by, things keep getting worse and once we get through it we lose all empathy and willingness to act on behalf of the people about to inherit the ****storm.[/QUOTE]

HU-MAN NA-TURE *clap!......clap!.....clap! clap! clap!*

I got **** to do yo!

 

[KillerDiller]

I hope this makes professional schools take a hit.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if the opposite is true and that students looking at the traditional route will be the ones who are dissuaded from entering the field . We all know that even at fully-funded institutions, some students need to take out loans to cover living expenses. These are the students who would normally get by with taking out the 8K in subsidized funds per year or less. Throughout the course of their graduate career, the difference in having this money interest-free and having the interest accrue is fairly dramatic. On the other hand, to students who are already maxing out loans in order to pay for a professional school, the added interest is just a drop in the bucket. I'm not sure the extra cost is going to dissuade anyone who is already willing to go into that much debt for the degree. However, it may cause a greater proportion to default, which is not what the government intends.

I get why the legislation is being proposed, I'm just not sure that it's a good thing from the student perspective.

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

I wouldn't mind if this makes professional students be more realistic about loans. Even as liberal I feel like Psy.D. students relying on IBR to cover them is gaming the system at the expense of the taxpayer. This should be a wakeup call to any professional students who think they can just rely on IBR to save them. Subsidized stafford: Here today, gone tomorrow. IBR, next?

It is still bass ackwards in terms of budget priorities.

Gaming the system...right. The cost of providing social services is borne by many but disproportionately by students taking out big loans to pay for the chance to work for free (practica and often internship) for four+ years. Anyone wishing the prof schools take a hit better be prepared to explain who they fantasize will be stepping into the breach.

 

[2012PhD]

Both sides want to take this money and put it directly into Pell Grants so minority/low income students can get degrees in African American Studies and Advertising, degrees with ridiculously low employment rates post-grad. What the hell. In 50 years when half the U.S. population is not White the gov will look really silly for conducting this indignant social experiment.

A PhD or PsyD from a professional school (like argosy) is not a marketable degree either. We don't know where these grads end up, but we do know that the majority of them take UNPAID internships and probably UNPAID post-docs or can't get hours for licensure.

 

[2012PhD]

Gaming the system...right. The cost of providing social services is borne by many but disproportionately by students taking out big loans to pay for the chance to work for free (practica and often internship) for four+ years. Anyone wishing the prof schools take a hit better be prepared to explain who they fantasize will be stepping into the breach.

What breach are you referring to? Last time I checked internships and practica are over saturated. 200 plus applicants for a handful of spots is not uncommon to see.....

Even on the practica level, things are seriously competitive at big name hospitals.

 

[aequitasveritas]

What breach are you referring to? Last time I checked internships and practica are over saturated. 200 plus applicants for a handful of spots is not uncommon to see.....

Even on the practica level, things are seriously competitive at big name hospitals.

Supply & Demand:any time a market must be competetive to the worker (even unpaid intern) then they must provide increased incentive. The upside of a possible financial aid fall-out is that less students in the field means no more slave labor for the undfunded internships.

 

[roubs]

Gaming the system...right. The cost of providing social services is borne by many but disproportionately by students taking out big loans to pay for the chance to work for free (practica and often internship) for four+ years. Anyone wishing the prof schools take a hit better be prepared to explain who they fantasize will be stepping into the breach.

Are you really defending Psy.D. programs choice to admit 100 students a class by saying at least they provide a bunch of free practicum labor? They didn't start admitting 100 students to meet a demand for services, they did it to line their own pockets.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Reform in the university system is needed, not just in psychology. Cracking down on student loans is a good first step, but out of control tuition hikes and predatory advertising also needs to be addressed.

 

[aagman01]

hey genius........got news for you......pell grants are not race based. im white....from a low income family....and had one throughout college. based on your racist responses and overall ignorant tone i am going to make the assumption your in a professional school and afraid of losing the subsidized loans you need to attend a doctoral program. i will end my response here, and wish you good riddance.....

What the African American Studies bit? How is that racist? It's a popular major among minorities and it was clearly for comedic effect and it being paired with Advertising implies the point was that these majors are those which have created the gov's desire to get rid of subsidized loans, first at the graduate level. As for the other bit, that's history muchachito.

I don't see any element of supremacy in my post, if anything I said two "races" were equivalent.

My gripe is with aid going to people on the basis of gov defined race and not exclusively financial need. This is relevant because this is related to the motion to do away with sub. loans.

Offending your obtuse sympathies does not imply the message was racist. Calling me a racist however...hurts my feelings

As for the warning about being banned...oh definitely. Yo concordo plenamente contigo.

Certainly coming for a different family background is diversity, but I find much more diversity among international students. Why? Because they come from a different universe.

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

Are you really defending Psy.D. programs choice to admit 100 students a class by saying at least they provide a bunch of free practicum labor? They didn't start admitting 100 students to meet a demand for services, they did it to line their own pockets.

The motive that launched the pro school movement is by now irrelevant -- communities make ample use of the free labor. As for the comment that there is competition for high flight practica sites, in some cases competition that's every bit as fierce as the high profile degree programs themselves -- should it be any different? After all, folks here seem to be all for meritocracy.

In any case, the point remains -- un/underpaid students are subsidizing services the public could (AND SHOULD) be funding otherwise. Here in the Bay Area, there seems ample need for each and every one of the student hours supplied.

Lastly -- FWIW, not all PsyD programs, not even all FSPS PsyD programs, accept 100 students.

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

based on your racist responses and overall ignorant tone i am going to make the assumption your in a professional school

So...what's your excuse for the unfounded deduction?

 

[roubs]

The motive that launched the pro school movement is by now irrelevant -- communities make ample use of the free labor. As for the comment that there is competition for high flight practica sites, in some cases competition that's every bit as fierce as the high profile degree programs themselves -- should it be any different? After all, folks here seem to be all for meritocracy.

In any case, the point remains -- un/underpaid students are subsidizing services the public could (AND SHOULD) be funding otherwise. Here in the Bay Area, there seems ample need for each and every one of the student hours supplied.

Lastly -- FWIW, not all PsyD programs, not even all FSPS PsyD programs, accept 100 students.

I'm not questioning the motive that "launched the pro school movement" -- but the one that launched their class sizes into the sky. It should be examined, called out, and the problem should be addressed in a serious way by APA(yeah--I know the chances of this). Obviously the public should be funding services. Allowing this glut of free labor to become the new norm will help this situation how?

Regardless of what good free practicum students do, the fact remains that the market is unable to absorb all these graduates when they actually graduate and enter the labor force. They are duping the bottom half of their huge cohorts into thinking they are on a viable career path. The good that students do at their sites doesn't excuse fraud.

 

[roubs]

Reform in the university system is needed, not just in psychology. Cracking down on student loans is a good first step, but out of control tuition hikes and predatory advertising also needs to be addressed.

FYI, this isn't "cracking down on student loans" this is a shifting of greater burden onto graduate students. It reflects the priorities of our elected leaders who are allergic to the idea of asking more from the truly wealthy but more than comfortable slashing and burning programs like Stafford loans that benefit middle class and poor people.

 

[aagman01]

So...what's your excuse for the unfounded deduction?

sticks and stones my friend........and your absolutely right about the unfounded portion of my comment.....

 

[Ollie123]

Agreed Jon. All the while our bloated defense budget remains relatively untouchable....'cause after all, who needs educated people, as long as we are smart enough to beat up others?

I'm all for trimming some fat from the budget, but the DoD is the first place I'd be looking, whereas cutting VA benefits seems to be one of the only areas even being considered for cuts (and within the defense budget...that's one of the last things I'd want to cut!). With our current trajectory I am increasingly considering fleeing the US for someplace less hellbent on self-destruction after graduation...Europe seems nice enough, and I'm always up for exploring new places.

I'm not sure this is the best answer, though we do certainly need some reform to the educational loan system. The notion that a few community agencies have come to rely on free labor from students is, frankly, a miserable excuse to continue the current system from both a fiscal standpoint, and a professional/psychological one.

 

[KillerDiller]

Im sorry, but that's just not the problem. There isn't enough money in the wealthy class to cover everyone else. ~47% of able bodied Americans did not pay income taxes last year. Of them, many received earned income tax credits (this is basically a transfer of tax payments from someone else to someone else). Revenue is relatively high despite the high number of free loaders.

This figure is accurate, but it can also be misleading without considering other factors. These 47% are not "free loaders", as they still paid pay roll taxes and other state, local, and federal taxes. Even with the tax credits and stimulus packages released under Bush and Obama, the average middle-class family paid over 14% of their income in taxes. I won't argue that the wealthy pay a lower rate than this, because that's often not true--at least not on the federal level. However, the tax rates for the wealthy have declined more than any other group and that has certainly contributed to the current economic crisis.

I agree that it is necessary to trim the fat from some government programs. However, raising the tax rate on the wealthy back to previous levels is also going to be necessary if we ever want to balance the budget.

 

[roubs]

Im sorry, but that's just not the problem. There isn't enough money in the wealthy class to cover everyone else. ~47% of able bodied Americans did not pay income taxes last year. Of them, many received earned income tax credits (this is basically a transfer of tax payments from someone else to someone else). Revenue is relatively high despite the high number of free loaders. However, spending is out of control, in my opinion due to extreme inefficiency and, basically, bureaucracy. I work in a VA as well as a university. We were visited by 39 different government agencies in the past year to audit us for various things. 39. And yet they talk about slashing research budgets, student loan programs, veterans benefits, defaulting on debt, SS (which they've stolen the money from repeatedly, huge pyramid scam), etc. . . It's crap. Kill the red tape. Stop with the redistribution of wealth via tax programs (WILL NEVER WORK). Redesign social programs to encourage people to work. Stop illegal immigration and the burden on our public school and medical systems. Have everyone pay into the system. Then, let's see where we stand.

As stats people I think we can expect better data analysis and interpretation from ourselves. The best way to measure revenue is (taxes / GDP), because using a simple number or even inflation adjusted number ignores the fact that the economy has been growing. By this measure, federal tax revenues are at their lowest point since 1950. The statement "Revenue is relatively high" is just not true.

Here is some data presentation:

Note how tiny the shares of estate/gift taxes and corporate taxes have become. How else would you interpret this data? There has been a strong push over the past 30 years to lower taxes and starve ourselves. Do you really think their efforts have been unsuccessful?

There isn't enough money in the wealthy class to cover everyone else.

Also false. You don't tax people as much as you tax wealth. In that respect we've always been an 80/20 country (now approaching 85/15), meaning 80 percent of the wealth in 20 percent of the people's hands. As we've eased back from taxing where the real wealth lies, our government is on more and more of a crash course with financial insolvency.

Talking about percentages of people and taxes is red herring data. All those people collectively make up one drop in the bucket.

If you went after the red tape, you would not find enough money to save

slashing research budgets, student loan programs, veterans benefits, defaulting on debt, SS

. Look at a chart of where our money goes. If this was a problem of red tape we would have solved it long ago. If you cut 10% from every federal employee salary you would save $26 billion. I won't stand in your way of doing that or even argue against it, but then what?

 

[roubs]

Actually, sorry, one point against just cutting 10% of federal salaries: My main point is that it's a drop in the bucket, but I don't want to be intellectually lazy and just give it away.

The problem is that percentage of income that is spent falls as total income rises. Because we are a consumer driven economy, any hit to people who spend 80% of their income is a greater harm to our overall GDP than a hit to people who spend 50% of their income.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Also false. You don't tax people as much as you tax wealth. In that respect we've always been an 80/20 country (now approaching 85/15), meaning 80 percent of the wealth in 20 percent of the people's hands. As we've eased back from taxing where the real wealth lies, our government is on more and more of a crash course with financial insolvency.

This is a red herring. The real problem is how the money is being spent once it has been collected. The DOD budget (the sacred cow), social welfare programs, and ridiculous "pork" that seems to be tacked onto every bill that passes through the halls of Congress. Spending is out of control, and until that can be reeled in, it doesn't matter how much we collect through taxes.

There is in fact a problem with how we tax people, but it isn't because of an 80/20 problem. Everyone needs to pay their fair share, which includes all tax brackets. Allowing people to functionally pay "nothing" is ridiculous. Gutting the tax code and instituting a flat tax is the easiest and most realistic solution.

Lastly, I agree with Jon Snow. We lose billions of dollars a year supporting illegal immigrants. The majority fail to pay into the system, yet they mooch off education, medical, and related resources.

 

[roubs]

It's great to cite 1902 as your starting year 10 years before income taxes existed

Also, this is what that graph actually says:

2009 14119 26.49 e
2010 14660.4 28.65g

28.65g means it is his 'guesstimate' that it will be 28.65% in 2010. So not 35% and not an actual data point that exists yet. The one that exists shows that it was 26.49% in 2009...which is the lowest since..the 1960s. So taxes revenues are at low since 1950s, all revenues at a low not seen since the 1960s. Yet we don't have a revenues are still at a relative high? They aren't.

No matter what you are spending you will be up a creek if you are not looking at revenue.

You wouldn't get an argument from me if we moved to VAT consumption based tax. But then we have 97% of Republicans signing their no-tax oath. So how likely is that to happen?

The fact is we have the lowest taxes on the wealthy in a generation and concurrently we have a problem meeting our basic obligations, SS, debt payments, student loans, medicaid. So yes, a big part of the -solution- is returning to historic higher tax rates on wealthy people. The tax cut Bush enacted, which as we see did wonders for our economy, is the single biggest factor impacting our debt level right now.

 

[roubs]

This is a red herring. The real problem is how the money is being spent once it has been collected. The DOD budget (the sacred cow), social welfare programs, and ridiculous "pork" that seems to be tacked onto every bill that passes through the halls of Congress. Spending is out of control, and until that can be reeled in, it doesn't matter how much we collect through taxes.

There is in fact a problem with how we tax people, but it isn't because of an 80/20 problem. Everyone needs to pay their fair share, which includes all tax brackets. Allowing people to functionally pay "nothing" is ridiculous. Gutting the tax code and instituting a flat tax is the easiest and most realistic solution.

Lastly, I agree with Jon Snow. We lose billions of dollars a year supporting illegal immigrants. The majority fail to pay into the system, yet they mooch off education, medical, and related resources.

You are of course right about DoD, but earmarks are another red herring because they make up 0.5% of the budget. So is foreign aid. Both are less than 1% of the budget, yet they get whipped into a frenzy by interest groups such that the public thinks we spend 10% of our budget on foreign aid. Pure propagation of ignorance.

Spending is the red herring because if you don't have money to spend you can't spend it.

Again, you are conflating numbers of people with how much money they actually have to tax. Take all the money you want from poor people, you aren't going to solve our financial situation. The people who actually make bank in our country would just rather you stay focused on them while their hand is in the cookie jar.

 

[cara susanna]

There's also the matter that the uber-wealthy always find loopholes out of taxes, so even if you raise taxes they probably won't pay as much as you would expect. Close those loopholes if you really want to redistribute the wealth.

Not that I'm in favor of that. I don't think people should have to pay my way through graduate school just because they make a lot of money.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

You are of course right about DoD, but earmarks are another red herring because they make up 0.5% of the budget. So is foreign aid. Both are less than 1% of the budget, yet they get whipped into a frenzy by interest groups such that the public thinks we spend 10% of our budget on foreign aid. Pure propagation of ignorance.

0.5% & 1.0% is WAAAAY too much. If people want to give money to other countries, they should do so privately. Spending public money outside of our borders is irresponsible to the fiscal budget and to the needs of our own citizens. I'm with Ron Paul on this....we shouldn't be involved in other countries' affairs, wars, etc.

Again, you are conflating numbers of people with how much money they actually have to tax. Take all the money you want from poor people, you aren't going to solve our financial situation. The people who actually make bank in our country would just rather you stay focused on them while their hand is in the cookie jar.

Why do people equate, "tax everyone" = "go after poor people!!"? I want everyone to be accountable for paying into the system. Millions of people fail to contribute taxes each year, and yes...a portion of them are in the lower tax brackets. The bulk of taxes should come from the top 2%-5%, but that doesn't absolve lower tax brackets from contributing their fair share. I think of it like a sliding scale fee at a clinic. The requirement to pay even a token amount brings buy-in from everyone.

 

[roubs]

CBS on Tax rates for the wealthy

So while tax rates for the wealthy have declined 9%, the overall rate on everyone has declined only 0.6%. This is supposedly going to have no impact on how much money we have available? We've also slashed capital gains tax from 30 to 15%. How has that helped our economy?

The funny thing is, I agree that all of the places you are going to look for spending are valid things to do. Even earmarks and foreign aid which are such pittances compared to the budget. Go after them because every bit helps. But people on the other side of this argument are willing to throw everything they have at this basic math to continue our collective delusion that returning to historic tax rates on the wealthy would do nothing. Like I said at the outset, this is a matter of priorities. Right now our government prioritizes lower taxes on the wealthy, lower capital gains tax over providing student loans. Really the whole federally backed student loan system is a part of this social engineering you guys deride. If you replace it with Chase and B of A the only practical result is less money for us and more money for Chase and B of A & their stockholders via higher interest rates.

There's also the matter that the uber-wealthy always find loopholes out of taxes, so even if you raise taxes they probably won't pay as much as you would expect. Close those loopholes if you really want to redistribute the wealth.

And yeah, this is the kind of thing that should be absolutely on the table.

Not tax cuts. . .

Again, this graph shows the impact of Bush's tax cuts on the debt. Arguing with it is like arguing with math.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday

To some extent we are talking past each other. I'm not advocating confiscating all the wealthy people's money no more than you're advocating that fixing foreign aid will somehow solve our crisis. Only by attacking this problem in several different ways will it be solved, and ignoring revenues and the (lack of) contribution from the wealthy is like trying to do it with one hand tied behind your back.

 

[DrGachet]

There's also the matter that the uber-wealthy always find loopholes out of taxes, so even if you raise taxes they probably won't pay as much as you would expect. Close those loopholes if you really want to redistribute the wealth.

Not that I'm in favor of that. I don't think people should have to pay my way through graduate school just because they make a lot of money.

No, people shouldn't have to pay for your grad education. At the same time, the insane gap between the rich and the poor is just inhumane, I don't care what anybody says. Unless the assumption is that the poor are users and useless, and the rich better than the rest. How can I, trained in behavioral sciences, and with a true desire to help my fellow human beings, watch them suffer, knowing full well that just a little bit of money could have made a world of difference in their situation. These loopholes are costing lives. Law should apply to every situation equally. You can't arrest a guy for smoking marijuana and humiliate him and put him on the show Cops, with the appearance that justice is being done, and then you have so much corruption at higher levels in our society that goes unpunished. This is not right.

 

[roubs]

0.5% & 1.0% is WAAAAY too much. If people want to give money to other countries, they should do so privately. Spending public money outside of our borders is irresponsible to the fiscal budget and to the needs of our own citizens. I'm with Ron Paul on this....we shouldn't be involved in other countries' affairs, wars, etc.



Why do people equate, "tax everyone" = "go after poor people!!"? I want everyone to be accountable for paying into the system. Millions of people fail to contribute taxes each year, and yes...a portion of them are in the lower tax brackets. The bulk of taxes should come from the top 2%-5%, but that doesn't absolve lower tax brackets from contributing their fair share. I think of it like a sliding scale fee at a clinic. The requirement to pay even a token amount brings buy-in from everyone.

I'd like to point out I'm not arguing against your principles, sure 0.5% may be too much, but the fact remains that your solutions are 1 foot of a 20 foot bridge we need to build. The income tax on the wealthy, capital gains, closing loopholes bring us waay closer but many are unwilling to consider them.

Eliminating the deductions that you talk about resulting in 0 taxes for people was actually part of this "grand bargain" Obama wanted. Unfortunately for one side, including the revenue raising planks of this bridge is so untenable that they'd rather explode the bridge.

 

[roubs]

hard to drop from nothing.

Again, that statement was about the overall rate on 100% of people. I know you're not suggesting 100% of people pay nothing

 

[DrGachet]

Reagan started the whole thing with wanting less and less government regulation. I call it the evolutionary model, survival of the sleaziest. Or the belief in sanctity of competition, as if somehow pure competition is going to keep everyone in check.

 

[roubs]

Nope, it's like arguing economics. Different ballgame. Tax cuts usually are succeeded by increases in revenue.

Now you are arguing dogma. Supply side has been debunked and the evidence of "what actually happens" after the cuts does not support it either. Nor does the fact that the economy/revenue GREW after the Reagan tax increases and the Bush#1 tax increases.

 

[roubs]

No, people shouldn't have to pay for your grad education. At the same time, the insane gap between the rich and the poor is just inhumane, I don't care what anybody says. Unless the assumption is that the poor are users and useless, and the rich better than the rest. How can I, trained in behavioral sciences, and with a true desire to help my fellow human beings, watch them suffer, knowing full well that just a little bit of money could have made a world of difference in their situation. These loopholes are costing lives. Law should apply to every situation equally. You can't arrest a guy for smoking marijuana and humiliate him and put him on the show Cops, with the appearance that justice is being done, and then you have so much corruption at higher levels in our society that goes unpunished. This is not right.

Given the many other opinions of people trained in the behavioral sciences, your empathy for those that have less than you is astonishing

If anything working with actual poor people has sharpened my view that helping them is less "social engineering" than "basic humanity".

 

[KillerDiller]

So, you think the problem is lower taxes on the wealthy? Really?
.

Technically, I think the problem is lower taxes on the wealthy, involvement in a needlessly expensive foreign war, and poor lending practices, especially in real estate . Only one of these is reversible at this point, at least in a way that is going to result in more immediate government revenue.

I do agree with you 100% on taxing the mega-churches. I also agree with Cara Susanna that the first step is closing the tax loopholes on the wealthy. However, I do not think a flat tax is going to solve anything. It will disproportionately hurt poorer families, thus causing even heavier reliance on social programs, and amount to even less money coming from the wealthy sector.

That's just crazy talk If you confiscated ALL of the wealthy's money, it wouldn't solve the problem. We spend like drunken sailors at a whorehouse.

Well, that was the theory behind trickle-down economics, that tax-breaks to the rich would bolster the economy because the rich would pump that money back into the system, making us all more wealthy. Unfortunately, it didn't work. The disparity between the top 1% and the rest of the country simply grew because that segment held onto their money.

FWIW, though, I don't think anyone is talking about confiscating ALL of the wealthy's money.

 

[DrGachet]

Given the many other opinions of people trained in the behavioral sciences, your empathy for those that have less than you is astonishing

If anything working with actual poor people has sharpened my view that helping them is less "social engineering" than "basic humanity".

Funny Roubs. What I meant to say (I'm operating on two hours of sleep) was that in the past I used to think it was a NICE thing to do, to help others, but as I learned about how human beings actually function, I realized that certain things are just NECESSARY. That we actually need safety and predictability, that social justice is important, that we need social support. And for a lot of these things to happen, we need money, and specifically, we need money to go towards the right sources, etc.

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

Gee...go to bed early for a change and look at all the fun I miss! How about a Marxist flavored perspective on the generalities?

My concern is simply that raising the price of going to school and decreasing the supply of available students will throw light on heretofore unrecognized elements of scarcity in the community, ones which will nevertheless have the same root cause as any of the other scarcities we’ve organized ourselves to manage and therefore not lead to any meaningful transformation.

Now, this is just me thinking while on vacation…The “glut of free labor” (psychology students) is not a glut of labor -- the demand for some bundle of services exists. (Note the folks demanding said services are not typically illegal immigrants). The inability of the market to absorb the supply of pricier clinicians is not shocking nor is it necessarily fraud and changing that situation has nothing to do with fine tuning supply and demand via taxes, interest rates, legislation, etc. Why? Groups organize to manage their needs and will nevertheless concoct the scarcities that ultimately justify the selection of their underfed and their dead. Those considering entering the field of psychology as we currently know it should not imagine that in achieving the status of psychologist they will have become sovereigns, above the fray of such sacrifices. Whether one is making a living or not as a psychologist is really immaterial.

All tinkering with the market aside, the community and the industry will likely simply continue to make do with one another via/qua the maintenance of scarcity, a dialectic demanding reciprocal sacrifices, until one or the other collapses from an overproduction of scarcities. Any guesses which one that would be? The “glut of free labor” and the inability of the market to absorb the supply of pricier clinicians is simply the cost of the market and society becoming sick of themselves and one another. Psychologists could militate for a reprioritization of society’s needs, but more profoundly they could make their practice a living critique of the organizing ideology.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

But we haven't helped them, we've contributed to creating an environment that damages them, making single patent homes with multiples upon multiples of children possible. We are behavioral scientists. I would not design our social programs as they are. Further we've allowed en masse more of those that need help to enter our system and burden it illegally.

Absolutely. We teach dependency on the system, and we reward people for staying in the system. We need to encourage legitimate users of the system to move on from it, and we need to aggressively pursue high utilizers and illegal users of the system.

 

[roubs]

But we haven't helped them, we've contributed to creating an environment that damages them, making single patent homes with multiples upon multiples of children possible. We are behavioral scientists. I would not design our social programs as they are. Further we've allowed en masse more of those that need help to enter our system and burden it illegally.

I agree with you that the way we've implemented programs designed to help them has fallen short. Have you read about programs like this? It's like the difference between a counselor telling you how to fix your problems and a counselor who draws your own solutions out of you.

So yeah, I think that is the way forward. Hopefully you'd agree that approach is preferable to the current one. At the same time, cutting aid to the poor now is not some kind of "harsh medicine" medicine that will fix anything. It will cause suffering to the people AND to America's economy, because as I mentioned earlier, working class and poor people need to spend a greater % of their income in order to stay afloat. Not a lot of room for 401ks. Spending drives our economy, any policies which take money out of the people's hands impact our GDP. I am aware that this is an argument AGAINST taxing the wealthy. However as many commentators have pointed out, we in a situation with no great alternatives. This is where the principles of shared sacrifice comes in. You have not seen one single plan from Democrats that spares all "social engineering" programs. In fact, its likely that devastating cuts are on the way. On the other side of the aisle, the Tea Party types continue to keep their head in the sand about asking ANYTHING from those who have some to give. One side is at least willing to craft a plan born in the principle of shared sacrifice, the other is willing to hold everyone hostage to get its way.

 

[DrGachet]

Absolutely. We teach dependency on the system, and we reward people for staying in the system. We need to encourage legitimate users of the system to move on from it, and we need to aggressively pursue high utilizers and illegal users of the system.

I think you guys are confusing helping the poor with blaming the poor. We have the guy who is smoking marijuana in the back and coming to work stoned because that's the only way he can deal with the pain of how horrible his life is. And then there is Enron (and all those corrupt corporations and their powerful lobbies). So say the same thing you just said but this time to BOTH. Both are abusing the system, both are being rewarded for it, both are doing something illegal, the difference is I have more sympathy for one of the two, can you guess which?

edit: just to be clear, the two I'm referring to, are people who are poor vs the very rich. Yes, some poor people who break the law and abuse the system do get caught/punished and the same with the wealthy who abuse the system such as Enron. But the loopholes remain and it's generally easier to catch and punish the poor because they don't have smart and well paid lawyers twisting the law in their favor.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think you guys are confusing helping the poor with blaming the poor. We have the guy who is smoking marijuana in the back and coming to work stoned because that's the only way he can deal with the pain of how horrible his life is. And then there is Enron (and all those corrupt corporations and their powerful lobbies). So say the same thing you just said but this time to BOTH. Both are abusing the system, both are being rewarded for it, both are doing something illegal, the difference is I have more sympathy for one of the two, can you guess which?

I'm in full agreement with you. They should throw the book, kitchen sink, and whatever else at the ENRON people because they did amazing damage to thousands of people. As for the guy smoking pot....I'd want to get him into a diversion program before trying to send him to jail.