|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Are they including dental too? If not then wow, I had no idea it was that expensive on average.
|
http://www.myfoxny.com/Story/22863801/driving-somewhere-theres-a-government-record-of-that
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/07/17/government-tracking-movement-of-every-vehicle-with-license-plate/
http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/police-documents-license-plate-scanners-reveal-mass
I read that the same thing is taking effect in California, with individual premiums expected to decline from 10-30 percent in the next year or two. Cool stuff.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/
Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 04:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Individuals buying health insurance on their own will see their premiums tumble next year in New York State as changes under the federal health care law take effect, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced on Wednesday.
State insurance regulators say they have approved rates for 2014 that are at least 50 percent lower on average than those currently available in New York. Beginning in October, individuals in New York City who now pay $1,000 a month or more for coverage will be able to shop for health insurance for as little as $308 monthly. With federal subsidies, the cost will be even lower.
Supporters of the new health care law, the Affordable Care Act, credited the drop in rates to the online purchasing exchanges the law created, which they say are spurring competition among insurers that are anticipating an influx of new customers. The law requires that an exchange be started in every state.
“Health insurance has suddenly become affordable in New York,” said Elisabeth Benjamin, vice president for health initiatives with the Community Service Society of New York. “It’s not bargain-basement prices, but we’re going from Bergdorf’s to Filene’s here.”
“The extraordinary decline in New York’s insurance rates for individual consumers demonstrates the profound promise of the Affordable Care Act,” she added. Source
Sure they will, Governor. Sure they will. If you think premiums are going to be lowered or that artificial scarcity in care availability will not quickly make a big appearance next year, I have a bridge on the moon to sell you.
|
On July 18 2013 05:19 Souma wrote:
Are they including dental too? If not then wow, I had no idea it was that expensive on average.
Dental and vision are usually separate, so I assume that's the case there as well.
And yes, it's insane!
Edit: nvmd the previous edit. it has been edited out, and the editor has been sacked 
|
On July 18 2013 05:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:http://www.myfoxny.com/Story/22863801/driving-somewhere-theres-a-government-record-of-thathttp://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/07/17/government-tracking-movement-of-every-vehicle-with-license-plate/http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/police-documents-license-plate-scanners-reveal-massShow nested quote +I read that the same thing is taking effect in California, with individual premiums expected to decline from 10-30 percent in the next year or two. Cool stuff. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 04:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Individuals buying health insurance on their own will see their premiums tumble next year in New York State as changes under the federal health care law take effect, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced on Wednesday.
State insurance regulators say they have approved rates for 2014 that are at least 50 percent lower on average than those currently available in New York. Beginning in October, individuals in New York City who now pay $1,000 a month or more for coverage will be able to shop for health insurance for as little as $308 monthly. With federal subsidies, the cost will be even lower.
Supporters of the new health care law, the Affordable Care Act, credited the drop in rates to the online purchasing exchanges the law created, which they say are spurring competition among insurers that are anticipating an influx of new customers. The law requires that an exchange be started in every state.
“Health insurance has suddenly become affordable in New York,” said Elisabeth Benjamin, vice president for health initiatives with the Community Service Society of New York. “It’s not bargain-basement prices, but we’re going from Bergdorf’s to Filene’s here.”
“The extraordinary decline in New York’s insurance rates for individual consumers demonstrates the profound promise of the Affordable Care Act,” she added. Source Sure they will, Governor. Sure they will. If you think premiums are going to be lowered or that artificial scarcity in care availability will not quickly make a big appearance next year, I have a bridge on the moon to sell you.
I have no use for that bridge, and you didn't build that.
|
On July 18 2013 05:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:http://www.myfoxny.com/Story/22863801/driving-somewhere-theres-a-government-record-of-thathttp://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/07/17/government-tracking-movement-of-every-vehicle-with-license-plate/http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/police-documents-license-plate-scanners-reveal-massShow nested quote +I read that the same thing is taking effect in California, with individual premiums expected to decline from 10-30 percent in the next year or two. Cool stuff. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 04:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Individuals buying health insurance on their own will see their premiums tumble next year in New York State as changes under the federal health care law take effect, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced on Wednesday.
State insurance regulators say they have approved rates for 2014 that are at least 50 percent lower on average than those currently available in New York. Beginning in October, individuals in New York City who now pay $1,000 a month or more for coverage will be able to shop for health insurance for as little as $308 monthly. With federal subsidies, the cost will be even lower.
Supporters of the new health care law, the Affordable Care Act, credited the drop in rates to the online purchasing exchanges the law created, which they say are spurring competition among insurers that are anticipating an influx of new customers. The law requires that an exchange be started in every state.
“Health insurance has suddenly become affordable in New York,” said Elisabeth Benjamin, vice president for health initiatives with the Community Service Society of New York. “It’s not bargain-basement prices, but we’re going from Bergdorf’s to Filene’s here.”
“The extraordinary decline in New York’s insurance rates for individual consumers demonstrates the profound promise of the Affordable Care Act,” she added. Source Sure they will, Governor. Sure they will. If you think premiums are going to be lowered or that artificial scarcity in care availability will not quickly make a big appearance next year, I have a bridge on the moon to sell you.
New York rates really are going to fall because they already banned rejection for pre-existing conditions without having a mandate or setting price controls which, quelle surprise, led to skyrocketing insurance premiums out of line with the rest of the country. Once there is a mandate the rates really do have a good chance of going down.
|
On July 18 2013 05:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 04:45 Souma wrote:
Are there individuals who really pay $1,000 a month for health insurance...? That is insane. That's a normal price for health insurance. So if you have insurance but aren't getting it subsidized by the government or your employer.. yes, that's what you pay. Edit: Show nested quote +...in 2012:
• The average health care cost per employee was $10,522, up from $10,034 in 2011.
• The employees' portion of the total health care premium was $2,204, up from $2,090 in 2011.
• Average employee out-of-pocket costs, such as co-payments, co-insurance and deductibles, were $2,200, up from $2,072 in 2011. LinkThe employer's 10522 plus employee's 2204 divided by 12 months = $1,060 / month for insurance.
Averages (mean) are a little off for health care due to the nature of the system, or I would assume anyways. I would like to see a median cost to get a better idea as to what "most" people pay.
|
House Republicans passed legislation Wednesday to delay the Obamacare individual mandate for one year — the chamber’s 38th attempt to repeal or dismantle the law.
The proposal is set to die in the Senate (and would face a certain veto by the President). It was a response to the Obama administration’s one-year delay in implementing the employer mandate for businesses with 50 or more workers.
The House held two back-to-back votes. One was to endorse the White House’s employer mandate delay — that passed 264-161. The second was to also delay by one year the individual mandate for most Americans to buy insurance — that passed 251-174.
Democrats said the bill to delay the employer mandate bill was unnecessary and opposed a delay of the individual mandate.
The legislation was designed as a partisan messaging device in service of the GOP’s ongoing quest to attack and undermine the health care reform law. Hatched by Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), it was a clever gambit buttressed by a populist message: If large employers get a one-year reprieve, why shouldn’t ordinary Americans?
“This is about basic fairness,” Boehner told reporters Wednesday.
The employer mandate is relatively inconsequential to the functioning of the law, and Treasury determined that the complex reporting requirements make it difficult to effectively implement in 2014. The individual mandate, by contrast, is a centerpiece of the law that health economists believe is vital to the success of its key provision to guarantee coverage for Americans who are sick or have preexisting conditions.
Source
|
On July 18 2013 05:36 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 05:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 18 2013 04:45 Souma wrote:
Are there individuals who really pay $1,000 a month for health insurance...? That is insane. That's a normal price for health insurance. So if you have insurance but aren't getting it subsidized by the government or your employer.. yes, that's what you pay. Edit: ...in 2012:
• The average health care cost per employee was $10,522, up from $10,034 in 2011.
• The employees' portion of the total health care premium was $2,204, up from $2,090 in 2011.
• Average employee out-of-pocket costs, such as co-payments, co-insurance and deductibles, were $2,200, up from $2,072 in 2011. LinkThe employer's 10522 plus employee's 2204 divided by 12 months = $1,060 / month for insurance. Averages (mean) are a little off for health care due to the nature of the system, or I would assume anyways. I would like to see a median cost to get a better idea as to what "most" people pay.
Best I could find, everything else was average.
Premium Levels and Trends in Private Health Insurance Plans
At the bottom it has, for Massachusetts in 2008, median premium at $470 for individual, $1250 family, a bit less for a bigger employer.
|
On July 18 2013 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 05:36 aksfjh wrote:On July 18 2013 05:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 18 2013 04:45 Souma wrote:
Are there individuals who really pay $1,000 a month for health insurance...? That is insane. That's a normal price for health insurance. So if you have insurance but aren't getting it subsidized by the government or your employer.. yes, that's what you pay. Edit: ...in 2012:
• The average health care cost per employee was $10,522, up from $10,034 in 2011.
• The employees' portion of the total health care premium was $2,204, up from $2,090 in 2011.
• Average employee out-of-pocket costs, such as co-payments, co-insurance and deductibles, were $2,200, up from $2,072 in 2011. LinkThe employer's 10522 plus employee's 2204 divided by 12 months = $1,060 / month for insurance. Averages (mean) are a little off for health care due to the nature of the system, or I would assume anyways. I would like to see a median cost to get a better idea as to what "most" people pay. Best I could find, everything else was average. Premium Levels and Trends in Private Health Insurance PlansAt the bottom it has, for Massachusetts in 2008, median premium at $470 for individual, $1250 family, a bit less for a bigger employer.
That makes a lot more sense. Although, $470 does still seem high, but given the cost of healthcare...
|
On July 18 2013 10:09 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 18 2013 05:36 aksfjh wrote:On July 18 2013 05:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 18 2013 04:45 Souma wrote:
Are there individuals who really pay $1,000 a month for health insurance...? That is insane. That's a normal price for health insurance. So if you have insurance but aren't getting it subsidized by the government or your employer.. yes, that's what you pay. Edit: ...in 2012:
• The average health care cost per employee was $10,522, up from $10,034 in 2011.
• The employees' portion of the total health care premium was $2,204, up from $2,090 in 2011.
• Average employee out-of-pocket costs, such as co-payments, co-insurance and deductibles, were $2,200, up from $2,072 in 2011. LinkThe employer's 10522 plus employee's 2204 divided by 12 months = $1,060 / month for insurance. Averages (mean) are a little off for health care due to the nature of the system, or I would assume anyways. I would like to see a median cost to get a better idea as to what "most" people pay. Best I could find, everything else was average. Premium Levels and Trends in Private Health Insurance PlansAt the bottom it has, for Massachusetts in 2008, median premium at $470 for individual, $1250 family, a bit less for a bigger employer. That makes a lot more sense. Although, $470 does still seem high, but given the cost of healthcare...
In my experience, for what it is worth, 500 dollars is about where you stand for disaster only coverage. That is to say like a 10-20k deductible on major procedure, no vision, no dental and some very limited prescription coverage. This is not me talking shit about this coverage as it is what I had for a lot of my early 20s and it gave me tremendous peace of mind. 1-1.5k a month is when you get what most white collar people would call insurance (50% emergency room, 2-10k major procedure deductible, comprehensive prescription/vision/dental) and around 2k a month for premium plans.
|
The Obama administration and Congress are not helping students, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) charged Wednesday, reaping record profits off the federal student loan program that a regulator said has finally surpassed $1 trillion in overall debt.
The federal government is due to book $51 billion in profit this year off new and existing federal student loans, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The record amount brings the government’s profit haul to nearly $120 billion over the past five years, according to CBO forecasts and Department of Education budget documents. The CBO estimates that the government will generate $184 billion in profit for new loans made this fiscal year through 2023.
“Instead of helping our students, the government is making a profit on student loans,” Warren said of the profit figures during a conference filled with young people. “That is wrong. It is morally wrong. That is obscene.”
“The government should not be making profits off the backs of our students," she said. "Period.”
Shortly after mentioning the $51 billion figure, Warren encouraged the audience of college students and young political activists to express their disapproval.
“We can hear some booing at this point,” she said, eliciting a round of boos presumably meant for the federal government. “There we go,” she added.
Source
|
Hrmmm, any idea how well a carbon tax would work on a state level? I guess it wouldn't hurt since all our industry was outsourced to the south a century ago
Lawmakers seeking to make Massachusetts 1st state with carbon tax
BOSTON — Setting out on what they say will be a long campaign, lawmakers are seeking to pass legislation that would tax carbon at $5 per metric ton.
The carbon tax backed by Rep. Tom Conroy (D-Wayland) and Sen. Michael Barrett (D-Lexington) would boost taxes on gasoline by about 3.5 cents per gallon, with the final amount to be determined by the Department of Revenue. The bill would also add new taxes to consumers of heating oil and firewood, though the lawmakers say much of collected tax revenue under their proposal would be given back to taxpayers through a proposed doubling of the personal income tax exemption and other measures. ...
Under the bill (H 2532), which attracted 11 lawmakers to sign on as supporters, the Department of Revenue would calculate how the $5 per metric ton tax would be applied on items such as gasoline and heating fuel. ...
The bill would raise between $350 million to $500 million though corresponding tax breaks in the bill would mean that state government would only retain $100 million of that, with the idea of funding public transit and other programs. ...
Link
|
On July 18 2013 11:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The Obama administration and Congress are not helping students, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) charged Wednesday, reaping record profits off the federal student loan program that a regulator said has finally surpassed $1 trillion in overall debt.
The federal government is due to book $51 billion in profit this year off new and existing federal student loans, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The record amount brings the government’s profit haul to nearly $120 billion over the past five years, according to CBO forecasts and Department of Education budget documents. The CBO estimates that the government will generate $184 billion in profit for new loans made this fiscal year through 2023.
“Instead of helping our students, the government is making a profit on student loans,” Warren said of the profit figures during a conference filled with young people. “That is wrong. It is morally wrong. That is obscene.”
“The government should not be making profits off the backs of our students," she said. "Period.”
Shortly after mentioning the $51 billion figure, Warren encouraged the audience of college students and young political activists to express their disapproval.
“We can hear some booing at this point,” she said, eliciting a round of boos presumably meant for the federal government. “There we go,” she added. Source
Should the government also not turn a profit on tax collection?
|
On July 18 2013 11:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The Obama administration and Congress are not helping students, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) charged Wednesday, reaping record profits off the federal student loan program that a regulator said has finally surpassed $1 trillion in overall debt.
The federal government is due to book $51 billion in profit this year off new and existing federal student loans, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The record amount brings the government’s profit haul to nearly $120 billion over the past five years, according to CBO forecasts and Department of Education budget documents. The CBO estimates that the government will generate $184 billion in profit for new loans made this fiscal year through 2023.
“Instead of helping our students, the government is making a profit on student loans,” Warren said of the profit figures during a conference filled with young people. “That is wrong. It is morally wrong. That is obscene.”
“The government should not be making profits off the backs of our students," she said. "Period.”
Shortly after mentioning the $51 billion figure, Warren encouraged the audience of college students and young political activists to express their disapproval.
“We can hear some booing at this point,” she said, eliciting a round of boos presumably meant for the federal government. “There we go,” she added. Source
Indeed, they should get out of that sector entirely. Excellent point Ms. Warren.
|
On July 18 2013 11:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 11:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Obama administration and Congress are not helping students, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) charged Wednesday, reaping record profits off the federal student loan program that a regulator said has finally surpassed $1 trillion in overall debt.
The federal government is due to book $51 billion in profit this year off new and existing federal student loans, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The record amount brings the government’s profit haul to nearly $120 billion over the past five years, according to CBO forecasts and Department of Education budget documents. The CBO estimates that the government will generate $184 billion in profit for new loans made this fiscal year through 2023.
“Instead of helping our students, the government is making a profit on student loans,” Warren said of the profit figures during a conference filled with young people. “That is wrong. It is morally wrong. That is obscene.”
“The government should not be making profits off the backs of our students," she said. "Period.”
Shortly after mentioning the $51 billion figure, Warren encouraged the audience of college students and young political activists to express their disapproval.
“We can hear some booing at this point,” she said, eliciting a round of boos presumably meant for the federal government. “There we go,” she added. Source Should the government also not turn a profit on tax collection?
Definitely not, especially not in this case.
|
On July 18 2013 11:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 11:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Obama administration and Congress are not helping students, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) charged Wednesday, reaping record profits off the federal student loan program that a regulator said has finally surpassed $1 trillion in overall debt.
The federal government is due to book $51 billion in profit this year off new and existing federal student loans, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The record amount brings the government’s profit haul to nearly $120 billion over the past five years, according to CBO forecasts and Department of Education budget documents. The CBO estimates that the government will generate $184 billion in profit for new loans made this fiscal year through 2023.
“Instead of helping our students, the government is making a profit on student loans,” Warren said of the profit figures during a conference filled with young people. “That is wrong. It is morally wrong. That is obscene.”
“The government should not be making profits off the backs of our students," she said. "Period.”
Shortly after mentioning the $51 billion figure, Warren encouraged the audience of college students and young political activists to express their disapproval.
“We can hear some booing at this point,” she said, eliciting a round of boos presumably meant for the federal government. “There we go,” she added. Source Should the government also not turn a profit on tax collection?
In a perfect world, it would be almost balanced, with only a tiny bit of actual loss.
In reality, I just think they shouldn't make AS much since student loan debt is more-or-less guaranteed due to bankruptcy laws.
|
United States44394 Posts
The two principles underlying usury are that the money being loaned has value and therefore that loaning has an opportunity cost and that there is a risk of default requiring interest payments to balance it. A government loan created from money written into existence and guaranteed by law to be repaid has neither of these.
|
On July 18 2013 20:48 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 11:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 18 2013 11:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Obama administration and Congress are not helping students, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) charged Wednesday, reaping record profits off the federal student loan program that a regulator said has finally surpassed $1 trillion in overall debt.
The federal government is due to book $51 billion in profit this year off new and existing federal student loans, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The record amount brings the government’s profit haul to nearly $120 billion over the past five years, according to CBO forecasts and Department of Education budget documents. The CBO estimates that the government will generate $184 billion in profit for new loans made this fiscal year through 2023.
“Instead of helping our students, the government is making a profit on student loans,” Warren said of the profit figures during a conference filled with young people. “That is wrong. It is morally wrong. That is obscene.”
“The government should not be making profits off the backs of our students," she said. "Period.”
Shortly after mentioning the $51 billion figure, Warren encouraged the audience of college students and young political activists to express their disapproval.
“We can hear some booing at this point,” she said, eliciting a round of boos presumably meant for the federal government. “There we go,” she added. Source Should the government also not turn a profit on tax collection? In a perfect world, it would be almost balanced, with only a tiny bit of actual loss. In reality, I just think they shouldn't make AS much since student loan debt is more-or-less guaranteed due to bankruptcy laws.
On July 18 2013 21:13 KwarK wrote:
The two principles underlying usury are that the money being loaned has value and therefore that loaning has an opportunity cost and that there is a risk of default requiring interest payments to balance it. A government loan created from money written into existence and guaranteed by law to be repaid has neither of these.
To KwarK - money used for student loans has just as much of an opportunity cost as any other government spending. People can default on their student loans too, it's harder than other loans, but you can still default (source).
To both - why is it so bad for the government to collect money from a loan but not from taxes? Either way it's money out of your pocket!
|
On July 18 2013 21:13 KwarK wrote:
The two principles underlying usury are that the money being loaned has value and therefore that loaning has an opportunity cost and that there is a risk of default requiring interest payments to balance it. A government loan created from money written into existence and guaranteed by law to be repaid has neither of these.
Well wealth is still finite. So if we have 100 units of wealth spread among $100, $1 represents 1 unit of wealth. When the government suddenly says "NOW THERE ARE $200!!!" then suddenly each $1 represents only 0.5 units of wealth. The opportunity cost is actually even steeper here because that 50 units of wealth just got taken away from it's highest efficiency use and put in student loans.
What's absolutely perverse is that the cost of writing those loans is shouldered soley by taxpayers, the cost of interest is shouldered entirely by students, but the profit always ends up in the hands of banks. It's like the exact opposite of a free market structure.
|
On July 19 2013 00:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 20:48 aksfjh wrote:On July 18 2013 11:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 18 2013 11:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Obama administration and Congress are not helping students, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) charged Wednesday, reaping record profits off the federal student loan program that a regulator said has finally surpassed $1 trillion in overall debt.
The federal government is due to book $51 billion in profit this year off new and existing federal student loans, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The record amount brings the government’s profit haul to nearly $120 billion over the past five years, according to CBO forecasts and Department of Education budget documents. The CBO estimates that the government will generate $184 billion in profit for new loans made this fiscal year through 2023.
“Instead of helping our students, the government is making a profit on student loans,” Warren said of the profit figures during a conference filled with young people. “That is wrong. It is morally wrong. That is obscene.”
“The government should not be making profits off the backs of our students," she said. "Period.”
Shortly after mentioning the $51 billion figure, Warren encouraged the audience of college students and young political activists to express their disapproval.
“We can hear some booing at this point,” she said, eliciting a round of boos presumably meant for the federal government. “There we go,” she added. Source Should the government also not turn a profit on tax collection? In a perfect world, it would be almost balanced, with only a tiny bit of actual loss. In reality, I just think they shouldn't make AS much since student loan debt is more-or-less guaranteed due to bankruptcy laws. Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 21:13 KwarK wrote:
The two principles underlying usury are that the money being loaned has value and therefore that loaning has an opportunity cost and that there is a risk of default requiring interest payments to balance it. A government loan created from money written into existence and guaranteed by law to be repaid has neither of these. To KwarK - money used for student loans has just as much of an opportunity cost as any other government spending. People can default on their student loans too, it's harder than other loans, but you can still default ( source). To both - why is it so bad for the government to collect money from a loan but not from taxes? Either way it's money out of your pocket!
The ideal way to finance a government is almost entirely by debt. But this requires an economy that grows...a lot. The government collects only enough taxes to pay the interest, and then the economy simply outgrows the debt burden. The idea of "profit" in an institution that is both supposed to not be concerned with it and has a monopoly on the use of force worries me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
