Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
16. They're paying less taxes (directly and indirectly) during the 20 years they are paying the loan.
Tue Aug 11, 2015, 03:21 PM
Aug 2015

So that means the government gets less money over those 20 years.

Less spending -> less sales taxes paid.
Can't afford to buy a house -> less property taxes, since they're renting a smaller space than they are likely to buy.
Can't afford to buy a new car -> less sales and property taxes due to keeping a "clunker", less income to car dealer, etc.

Also they will be spending and supporting the economy around them.

Except they will be spending much less during the 20 years they pay on the student loan, because it is a larger percentage of their smaller income.

And both are equally able to start a big company.

Nope. The one paying student loans will have a harder time financing a startup. They have a lot more debt, and they have a big fixed payment every month.

And by the time they finally pay off the loans, they are more likely to be saddled with recurring expenses. Such as children.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

K & R. n/t FSogol Aug 2015 #1
Main problem with her plan: Her plan is more "easy credit". jeff47 Aug 2015 #2
I'm not sure that makes sense hill2016 Aug 2015 #7
Your long haul is too short. Also, we are not individuals in a vacuum. jeff47 Aug 2015 #8
yes hill2016 Aug 2015 #10
They're paying less taxes (directly and indirectly) during the 20 years they are paying the loan. jeff47 Aug 2015 #16
but hill2016 Aug 2015 #18
One time. Spending is taxed multiple times. jeff47 Aug 2015 #19
that makes even less sense hill2016 Aug 2015 #22
Depends on the overall state of the economy. jeff47 Aug 2015 #23
You're overlooking progressive taxation Jim Lane Aug 2015 #20
if this Goldman guy hill2016 Aug 2015 #21
Goldman guy can't guarantee he'll have a high-paying job when he takes out the loan. jeff47 Aug 2015 #25
Why add the complexity of a loan? jeff47 Aug 2015 #24
Partly because, as you note, the taxing mechanism isn't perfect Jim Lane Aug 2015 #29
Colleges could be a lot cheaper Qutzupalotl Aug 2015 #3
HRC, as always, too little and too late. Divernan Aug 2015 #4
Hillary's plan < O'Malley's plan < Bernie's universal plan Fearless Aug 2015 #5
Yeh, Third Way corporate profit ClintonED and O'MalleyED vs. Bernie's free education Zorra Aug 2015 #12
+1 Fearless Aug 2015 #14
Totally free four year college is a pandering pipe dream redstateblues Aug 2015 #28
Freezing public college tuition is a stupid idea. aikoaiko Aug 2015 #6
that wasn't his experience in my state bigtree Aug 2015 #9
Are you sure? February 3, 2015 Update: state budget deficits and UMD budget cuts aikoaiko Aug 2015 #11
Yikes. Agschmid Aug 2015 #13
you should realize that all states were forced to make adjustments to budgets due to sequestration bigtree Aug 2015 #15
sure, but it highlights why tuition freezes are a problem. aikoaiko Aug 2015 #26
it more highlights the consequenses of the 2013 sequestration bigtree Aug 2015 #27
Thank you for laying this out. Incredibly impressive work. askew Aug 2015 #17
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Hillary Clinton's 'Debt-F...»Reply #16