Only we're not spending money to increase education, we're spending money to bail kids who are already high-income out of their education bills. A lot of those kids attended college in the first place because they came from households of economic privilege to begin with. What's next? Bail out all the doctors and attorneys because they have grad school debt?
Only we're not spending money to increase education, we're spending money to bail kids who are already high-income out of their education bills. A lot of those kids attended college in the first place because they came from households of economic privilege to begin with. What's next? Bail out all the doctors and attorneys because they have grad school debt?
Please don't assume attorneys clear the $125,000 threshold. I have been an attorney since 1987 and know the legal job market in and out. The number of attorneys making $125,000 straight out of law school might be 1 out of 25. The number making more than $125,000 after 20 years might be 5 out of 25. Many attorneys make $40,000 to $50,000 with very little in the way of benefits. And that is if they're lucky to get a job. The most sought after legal jobs today are public sector jobs b/c their pay has gone up much more than the private sector. Plus, you get benefits in the public sector you will never get as a private law firm attorney. People need to stop putting lawyers in the same class as doctors when it comes to compensation.
Yea, that limit is *$125k/year for individuals and $250k/year for households*. That upper limit is very much "high-income," do you disagree?
And how many households with college debt regardless of income threshold *aren't* going to take advantage of this rich kid bailout ya figure? What's your ballpark guesstimate on that one?
There are millions of folks who do not make $125,000 as an individual or $250,000 per year that will benefit correct? Would you support this effort if it was say $60,000 individual and $120,000 for a family? In your opinion, is there a category of income that would be more acceptable?? Again the " rich kid bailout" you state seems Iike a pre conceived notion you will cling too.
Please take a look at the chart here, specifically where it says "Household Income Per Earner" and the corresponding quintile values per average household in that quintile. Then when you're done looking at those numbers you can tell me this isn't a rich kid bailout with caps set at $125k/individual and $250k/household if you still feel that way.
YES!!! I would 1000% support a bailout of people at lower income brackets who actually need it rather than people who live decadently and are whining about bills that they voluntarily took on that they 1000% can afford to pay back. Why is this so hard of a position for people to get?
It comes down to household income once you talk about married individuals. For example, an individual making $85k/year married to someone making $35k/year is a $120k/year household, but an individual making $85k/year married to an individual making $75k/year is now an in an $160k/year household.
On the household side, the cap should have been lowered to something like households making $140k and on the individual side probably closer to individuals making $65k in today's economy. Going up to $250k/household and $125k/individual was just a bonkers cash-for-rich-kids bailout program. When you mix the bailout for the working class in with the bailout for the rich kids, you water down the notion that this isn't about bailing out the nation's most privileged children. In fact, you're making it look like it *is* about bailing out the rich kids out with that kind of upper limit, and everyone else who came in below them was just riding onto the coat tails of the rich kids getting bailed out.
Only we're not spending money to increase education, we're spending money to bail kids who are already high-income out of their education bills. A lot of those kids attended college in the first place because they came from households of economic privilege to begin with. What's next? Bail out all the doctors and attorneys because they have grad school debt?
Please don't assume attorneys clear the $125,000 threshold. I have been an attorney since 1987 and know the legal job market in and out. The number of attorneys making $125,000 straight out of law school might be 1 out of 25. The number making more than $125,000 after 20 years might be 5 out of 25. Many attorneys make $40,000 to $50,000 with very little in the way of benefits. And that is if they're lucky to get a job. The most sought after legal jobs today are public sector jobs b/c their pay has gone up much more than the private sector. Plus, you get benefits in the public sector you will never get as a private law firm attorney. People need to stop putting lawyers in the same class as doctors when it comes to compensation.
Now do doctors.
You assume it's "high income"...isn't there an income limit on who can take advantage? And, let's be clear, it's optional..not mandatory
Yea, that limit is *$125k/year for individuals and $250k/year for households*. That upper limit is very much "high-income," do you disagree?
And how many households with college debt regardless of income threshold *aren't* going to take advantage of this rich kid bailout ya figure? What's your ballpark guesstimate on that one?
There are millions of folks who do not make $125,000 as an individual or $250,000 per year that will benefit correct? Would you support this effort if it was say $60,000 individual and $120,000 for a family? In your opinion, is there a category of income that would be more acceptable?? Again the " rich kid bailout" you state seems Iike a pre conceived notion you will cling too.
Please take a look at the chart here, specifically where it says "Household Income Per Earner" and the corresponding quintile values per average household in that quintile. Then when you're done looking at those numbers you can tell me this isn't a rich kid bailout with caps set at $125k/individual and $250k/household if you still feel that way.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/explaining-us-income-inequality-by-household-demographics-2020-update/
I get your point. You don't object to the debt relief, it appears it's the income limits are too high...fair enough
YES!!! I would 1000% support a bailout of people at lower income brackets who actually need it rather than people who live decadently and are whining about bills that they voluntarily took on that they 1000% can afford to pay back. Why is this so hard of a position for people to get?
Is there someone specific you are thinking of who "live decadently" and are whiners?? Who are these people you are referring to?
It comes down to household income once you talk about married individuals. For example, an individual making $85k/year married to someone making $35k/year is a $120k/year household, but an individual making $85k/year married to an individual making $75k/year is now an in an $160k/year household.
On the household side, the cap should have been lowered to something like households making $140k and on the individual side probably closer to individuals making $65k in today's economy. Going up to $250k/household and $125k/individual was just a bonkers cash-for-rich-kids bailout program. When you mix the bailout for the working class in with the bailout for the rich kids, you water down the notion that this isn't about bailing out the nation's most privileged children. In fact, you're making it look like it *is* about bailing out the rich kids out with that kind of upper limit, and everyone else who came in below them was just riding onto the coat tails of the rich kids getting bailed out.
Very good sir. We'll see how it all shakes out as a lawsuit has been filed by someone in Indiana I believe.