T0: We both have $0.
T1: We both borrow $10,000 and have -$10000
T2-T11: We both make $2,000, of which I pay back $1,000, you pay back $0 per time period
t11: The government pays off your $10,000 loan
At T11 I will have $10,000, and you will have $20,000.
This is what I mean by bucket-crab mentality. The inability to discern someone else doing better from you doing worse.
Except we do have an idea not just from the news/knowledge, but also from the fact that taxes fund this scenario.
One gets their tax money (plus some) back. Another pays taxes, but gets none back.
This is the crux of it. You're not actually penalized, it just makes you upset. You can choose to not be upset. I'm happy that people who most need help are getting some.
> But also from the fact that taxes fund this scenario. > One gets their tax money (plus some) back. Another pays taxes, but gets none back.
This is false. No taxes were levied on you to fund this scenario.
If you want to count the downstream effects, the deficit is drastically down under the Biden administration, so this is part of a package deal that helps you out (not that the this would raise your taxes anyway even if the deficit were to increase).
Not to mention the effects of stimulus from people who would otherwise be paying money on a loan but can now spend it on other things, which will trickle up to whatever corporation you work for, so from this action alone you may actually come out ahead.
But I contend that you're not interested a full accounting or the dollar amount people are receiving, because if you were, you would be much more interested in the pounds being given to interests that clearly don't need them (military, mega farms, oil) instead of the pennies given to those that do.
The short of it is no taxes are levied on you for this to happen, it really is a win for everyone, and it's ok for these people to get a little bit of help that you're not getting.
This is the crux of the point. We're discussing that two people with equal _capability_ to pay, but differing conscientiousness have outcomes that are inverted from a well ordered set of incentives. We're creating (additional) precedents for rewarding irresponsibility with finances in the face of marginal choices between paying back a loan and present day consumption. (not in the choice of degree)
> you would be much more interested in the pounds being given to interests that clearly don't need them (military, mega farms, oil) instead of the pennies given to those that do.
I actually am interested in these, and they're just not the specific topic today. For the record I am against most (all?) forms of market distortion by the government, except when they're breaking obviously distorted economic incentives[1] (and not creating worse ones as is the case here).
> of it is no taxes are levied
Taxes for the most part a general bucket and as such expenditures as such are from taxes paid. Even if it's not my money it's not right for whomever paid them
[1] such as tragedy of the commons
No, because you spent $10K on random stuff that he/she did not. Somewhere you have $10K in goods, services, or experiences that he/she does not.
Governments raise money through taxation. 10k of forgiven debt is 10k more than needs to be raised in taxes.
Someone payed their debt, and then will be taxed more to pay someone else's too.
You might say, "but governments don't have to balance their budget", yet the US still has taxes. If money spent (and debt incurred) is irrelevant, why collect taxes at all?
Suppose everyone else on the planet is given $10B and you get nothing. Why would you be concerned? How could it be unfair? They're just being given something that you are not.