If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Department of Education cancels woman's $91,000 student loans due to her total disability. IRS now wants $26,000 in "back taxes" because the cancelled student loans count as income   (gma.yahoo.com) divider line 279
    More: Sick, IRS, loan debt, New Jersey, student loans, credit reporting agency, federal student loans, back taxes, disability pension  
•       •       •

9156 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Apr 2012 at 10:40 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



279 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-06 11:57:37 PM  

EllenTheBad: Somebody HELP that poor woman!

Bummer. The cracks are getting wider, and many more of us will fall through.


Sounds like she is being helped, one department at a time.
She is unlikely to pay the tax.
They will probably forgive eventually, either through bankruptcy or some other thing some clerk is busily searching for right now.
 
2012-04-06 11:57:41 PM  

EllenTheBad: Somebody HELP that poor woman!

Bummer. The cracks are getting wider, and many more of us will fall through.


After you.
 
2012-04-06 11:58:01 PM  

gameshowhost: Yup. Patently non-meritocratic, to boot.


There hasn't been much meritocracy since entrance exams were done away. A hundred years ago if you wanted to go to Harvard, you had to pass the entrance exam. Then one day they noticed they had more Jewish students than they were comfortable with passing the exams, so they did away with them and came up with roughly the same admissions procedure they have now. Except at first they required a picture. In order to go to Harvard you had to look like a "Harvard man". And they did this, openly, while with a straight face claiming to be the best school in the country. Meanwhile the University of Chicago never gave a damn about religion, race or gender. Guess where one would expect to find the better student body overall? Oh and currently if you're family makes under $75,000 then the school forgives any part of the tuition you can't afford out of pocket. And if you're family makes between $75,000 and $90,000 it forgives half the amount you can't cover out of pocket. Plus there's other merit based aid. Basically they're quietly trying to do away with tuition for as many undergrads as possible while fitting the American idea that the best schools should be expensive, after all if you look at what they charge for tuition it's far from cheap. Though according to one friend they may drop that pretense in the near future.
 
2012-04-06 11:58:52 PM  
There is both a whole lot of stupid and a whole lot of sense in this thread. COD income is nothing new. Sorry about the disability, but you got a monetary benefit.

/Enrolled Agent
 
2012-04-06 11:59:06 PM  

cuzsis: TiltingAtWindmills: cuzsis: /i can't accept a gift because I can't afford the taxes, even on something small, is utterly stupid.

You don't have to pay federal income tax on a gift received. You may be confusing its treatment with prizes. ("Gift tax" is paid by the donor, and only beyond a fairly generous yearly and lifetime limit.)

/though you do take on the donor's basis, so if you sell it, you may have to pay tax on appreciation accrued while in the hands of the donor
//tinla


Actually you are required to pay "sales tax" on certain gifts.

I received an older car (needed some work) as a gift. Got hit plenty with taxes on that.

/don't really care if they call it income/sales tax. In this case the results are the same, gov't taking a chunk out of your windfall because they want to.
//even though you received *no* cash to pay for that windfall with.


You are supposed to put $1 in the purchase price field, so you don't have to pay gift tax.
 
2012-04-07 12:00:02 AM  

Animatronik: where people like you now expect the nation to pick up a trillion dollar tab for education.


It wouldn't cost very much to make things cheap for everyone. Also, there's the concept of education for its own sake. And having people not go to the best school they can manage to go to is bad for them and the schools, and by extension all of us.
 
2012-04-07 12:00:56 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry about the disability, but you got a monetary benefit.


Yeah let's punish the disabled. Nothing screams ethics and morals like punishing the disabled financially on top of them having to live with their conditions.
 
2012-04-07 12:00:57 AM  

Begoggle: cuzsis: aybara: Only in America can not seeing any actual income be taxed for income.

Farking this.

It's sick and should never be allowed. You aren't given actual cash? You don't tax it.

So my employer can start paying me in store credit, cars, furniture, merchandise, etc. and I pay no taxes (in fact I can collect welfare since I get paid so little cash).
Sounds good to me.



You act like that doesn't already happen...

There's a very good reason people don't do that in droves. It's not practical for anyone who isn't dirt poor. If you would rather be dirt poor than making a modest income and paying a few taxes, be my guest.
 
2012-04-07 12:01:23 AM  
relcec:
of course you inject your opinion into it.
you already call even advanced post secondary education and a trip to the doctor to get an ED pill public goods simply so it sets up an argument that they should be completely governemnt funded.
I like you and that you have some knowledge that most farkers aren't even aware exists, but I also recognize you'd call everything a public good and have us living in socialist paradise if you could get away with it.


Ah, not even close in your assessment, since the only things that I call public goods are those things whose characteristics fall in the realm of public goods... making them public goods by economic definition... but I'm still glad that you like me. :P I could type endless pages of things that are private goods, by economic definition, but that would get us nowhere. The fact is that, in this country, most everything is presumed to be a private good w/o a stitch of analysis... I'm merely holding the proverbial feet to the fire. Let the characteristics speak for themselves.

Begoggle: Just making clear that what you're saying is HIGHER TAXES.
So then we pay the IRS instead of paying the school directly.
Of course we already send a lot of tax money to higher education, so let's not forget about that.


If society is better-allocating resources, then more taxes it is. That's what efficiency is all about. Again - economics has never been about the individual... the *definition* of an efficient transaction is "marginal price = marginal cost to society".

Alright, I'm moments from sleepy time. Don't forget to look at TFA's chick's DSLs!
 
2012-04-07 12:01:44 AM  

itsdan: Shostie: Very likely, she'll apply for an Offer in Compromise with the IRS for a lesser amount. If she's lucky, the IRS will accept it and they'll move on.

And then she'll get a letter from the IRS regarding the taxes she got discharged.


The IRS will most likely consider the debt non-collectible based on income.

While the rules and regulations of the IRS seem heartless, revenue agents are given broad discretion to modify or nullify taxes owed.

The IRS is staffed by Americans who have hearts, brains, and emotions. They also have no desire to squeeze money from someone who doesn't have any. Seizing property is time consuming and it is easier to go after deadbeats.
 
2012-04-07 12:02:07 AM  

Begoggle: cuzsis: TiltingAtWindmills: cuzsis: /i can't accept a gift because I can't afford the taxes, even on something small, is utterly stupid.

You don't have to pay federal income tax on a gift received. You may be confusing its treatment with prizes. ("Gift tax" is paid by the donor, and only beyond a fairly generous yearly and lifetime limit.)

/though you do take on the donor's basis, so if you sell it, you may have to pay tax on appreciation accrued while in the hands of the donor
//tinla


Actually you are required to pay "sales tax" on certain gifts.

I received an older car (needed some work) as a gift. Got hit plenty with taxes on that.

/don't really care if they call it income/sales tax. In this case the results are the same, gov't taking a chunk out of your windfall because they want to.
//even though you received *no* cash to pay for that windfall with.

You are supposed to put $1 in the purchase price field, so you don't have to pay gift tax.


If the purchase price is less than the blue book they will charge you the taxes on the blue book price.

/this is also why houses have appraisers.
 
2012-04-07 12:02:11 AM  

WhyteRaven74: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry about the disability, but you got a monetary benefit.

Yeah let's punish the disabled. Nothing screams ethics and morals like punishing the disabled financially on top of them having to live with their conditions.


Yeah, I hate how having to comply with decades old tax law is punishment.
 
2012-04-07 12:03:24 AM  

itsdan: Next up, that shirt you bought for $19.99 that was 50% off? You owe taxes on your windfall.


But the shirt was only worth $2.50!

/funny, I don't think my argument will work in your scenario...
 
2012-04-07 12:03:24 AM  

Fooky_Monster: So what about scholarships and VA benefits...is that taxable income?


You're kidding, right?

Scholarships are only usable for the purpose for which they are applied--that is a "scholarship" to UCLA is merely free admittance to UCLA. It has no intrinsic cash value, and the recipient can't get $10,000 cash instead of the scholarship.

VA benefits were already paid for by the servicemember's prior service to his or her country, and I won't listen to your lame arguments to the contrary.
 
2012-04-07 12:04:56 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: I hate how having to comply with decades old tax law is punishment.


The law should have never existed, it should not be allowed to continue to exist. Placing additional financial burdens upon the disabled is simply indefensible.
 
2012-04-07 12:07:42 AM  

theflatline: My town has a line of people who stand downtown every day with impeach Obama signs.

So the other day I was off of work and decided to walk downtown to my local pub to get my drink on when I decided to talk to them.

3 guys who were younger than me were giving me the spiel how Obama and the welfare mongers were ruining the country.

These 3 white chaps were on disability.

Which struck me as odd, because if you can stand up all day waving a sign saying obama sucks you should be able to get a farking job.


Did you tell them that "X-Restaurant" was looking for sign holders?

Because that would've been hilarious.

/guy up here makes $20/hr doing that. He's in demand all over.
//most only make $10-$15/hr.
 
2012-04-07 12:11:17 AM  

WhyteRaven74: gameshowhost: Yup. Patently non-meritocratic, to boot.

There hasn't been much meritocracy since entrance exams were done away. A hundred years ago if you wanted to go to Harvard, you had to pass the entrance exam. Then one day they noticed they had more Jewish students than they were comfortable with passing the exams, so they did away with them and came up with roughly the same admissions procedure they have now. Except at first they required a picture. In order to go to Harvard you had to look like a "Harvard man". And they did this, openly, while with a straight face claiming to be the best school in the country. Meanwhile the University of Chicago never gave a damn about religion, race or gender. Guess where one would expect to find the better student body overall? Oh and currently if you're family makes under $75,000 then the school forgives any part of the tuition you can't afford out of pocket. And if you're family makes between $75,000 and $90,000 it forgives half the amount you can't cover out of pocket. Plus there's other merit based aid. Basically they're quietly trying to do away with tuition for as many undergrads as possible while fitting the American idea that the best schools should be expensive, after all if you look at what they charge for tuition it's far from cheap. Though according to one friend they may drop that pretense in the near future.


Interesting...I may have to look them up for some friends.

/but will this work for non-resident students?
 
2012-04-07 12:14:03 AM  

SphericalTime: SphericalTime: That's . . . Odd. I'm sure there are people trying to abuse the system that might be manipulating debt cancellation, but it seems fairly obvious that someone with a clear permanent disability isn't going to be getting rich on student debt cancellation.

I hope the IRS figures this out in a farming hurry.

Farking hurry, rather. Damned autocorrect.


Yippie-kye-ay melon farmer!
 
2012-04-07 12:14:04 AM  
This is proof once again that every aspect of GOVERNMENT is a hilarious failure and so vote Republican and like such as.
 
2012-04-07 12:14:08 AM  

aybara: Only in America can not seeing any actual income be taxed for income.


imagine that we go one step further and find that you can be fined by the IRS for not buying something that you don't want to buy.
 
2012-04-07 12:16:13 AM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: jtown: I'm trying to figure out how to be outraged but I'm coming up empty. If she'd fulfilled the obligation, she would not only have returned that 90something grand, she would have paid out a good amount of interest. By forgiving her debt, she was put in a position where she was over a hundred grand ahead of where she would have been if she'd paid off her debt according to the terms of the contract. No matter how you slice it, that's income that had never been taxed.

They'll put a lien on her home and collect the debt when the home is sold.

She had FARKING CANCER YOU DICKSHIAT!


So, what? If she'd been working, she would have paid taxes on her income. Three of my grandparents were killed by cancer and they paid taxes on their income. Should they have had their tax payments refunded when they were diagnosed? Give me a break. Income is income and income is taxed.

WhyteRaven74: jtown: They'll put a lien on her home and collect the debt when the home is sold.

What a brilliantly humane thing to do to someone who is disabled and has no real choice in the matter. Do you also steal candy from babies?


What's inhumane? Inhumane would be seizing her assets and throwing her out on the street. A lien lets her use the property and the remaining equity goes to her heirs. What a horrible, terrible way to handle her unexpected debt.
 
2012-04-07 12:20:41 AM  

Begoggle: You are supposed to put $1 in the purchase price field, so you don't have to pay gift tax.


Such an effort would give you a $1 basis in the asset, making its entire remaining value taxable at the time you sold it. In short, this is a terrible, terrible, terrible idea. (Unless you plan to exhaust all value of the asset, but even then, the gift tax has such a high floor that this sort of maneuver would only be worthwhile on a high-dollar asset, and then you'd have virtually no chance of getting by with this-so still terrible. And any gift tax is paid by the donor, who presumably has more resources to pay.)
 
2012-04-07 12:21:49 AM  
Lend 91K to someone that's unemployed?

i424.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-07 12:22:11 AM  
It's valid to tax it as income, but they should allow her to make payments. Otherwise she would have been better off without the loan being forgiven.
 
2012-04-07 12:24:51 AM  

cuzsis: /but will this work for non-resident students?


U of Chicago is a private school and like most private schools they charge the same tuition to all students regardless of what state they're from. And the financial aid is available to all students regardless of state.

jtown: . What a horrible, terrible way to handle her unexpected debt.


How about just throwing the debt out the window since her inability to repay it is in no way her fault? No lien, no nothing.
 
2012-04-07 12:26:58 AM  
As someone who has a massive student loan, and could possibly become disabled (it's unlikely, but not impossible), I'd much rather pay off my student loans than have them "forgiven" and have to pay taxes on the amount.

It wasn't free money, like a grant or a scholarship, this was a LOAN, i.e, money I took on the promise it would be paid back someday; and with a staggeringly low fixed rate. I didn't have to pay taxes on my LOAN while I was living on it and using it for law school, because as a student loan it wasn't considered income. I think that's fair enough.

Moreover, were I to become disabled, I'd far rather work with the loan officers for a reduced payment than with the IRS agents who want all their money now. Those f*ckers don't care. And you can default on a loan. You can't default on a tax payment.
 
2012-04-07 12:29:13 AM  
Some advice if you are disabled and wish to get your student loans discharged.

First, if you own property you should create a C-Corporation and transfer ownership of all property to the C-Corp. Register the corporation in your state as an LLC.

Then name your children, nephews, nieces, brothers, sisters or parents as officers. Use an attorney as manager.

Let the IRS try to put liens on a corporation. Ain't gonna happen.
 
2012-04-07 12:29:15 AM  

Gyrfalcon:

Moreover, were I to become disabled, I'd far rather work with the loan officers for a reduced payment than with the IRS agents who want all their money now. Those f*ckers don't care. And you can default on a loan. You can't default on a tax payment.


You can't default on a government-backed student loan, either...at least, not indefinitely. Eventually, the government will garnish your paychecks, take any tax refunds owed, etc. The government WILL get its money from you, one way or another.
 
2012-04-07 12:30:09 AM  

NowhereMon: She got $91,000. Why would that be exempt from taxes?


I'm pretty sure the taxes on $91,000 are less than $91,000, so she comes out ahead.

Only issue is the students loans had a 20 or 30 year pay off schedule while the IRS is more like, fark you, pay me.
 
2012-04-07 12:30:09 AM  
I'd just tell them to fark off and ignore it. There's absolutely nothing I can do about it anyway. I'm DISABLED. I'm not going to earn any money. If the IRS decides to suck the money out of me somehow, there isn't much I can do about that either.

I don't have much in front of me anyway except 12-hour-a-day IV feeding sessions. I'm sure as shiat not going to sit around and worry about how I can pay off the IRS.
 
2012-04-07 12:30:37 AM  
You Farkers have all substantially benefited thanks to reading the foregoing article.

Be sure to report said benefit as "income" on your 2012 tax return.

Thank you,

theIRS.
 
2012-04-07 12:34:27 AM  
I haven't posted in forever. But I needed to chime in on this one. First off ...She borrowed $91,000. She got sick and could not pay it back.. shiatty situation but forgiving her debt is and should be a taxable event. If all of the people that have cancer stop paying their credit cards(which is also taxable if you pay less than you owe through a settlement), what would happen. If you borrow money you need to pay it back. Secondly student loan debt is not exempt from bankruptcy settlements but not easy so while all of your other debt can be discharged. Student loan debt can be the most difficult
Now here is my problem. What about all of the mortgage debt that has been forgiven. I know someone that bought a second house, refinanced and cleared about $200k plus. When the market turned he walked away and has no repercussions. That is BS ..he clearly took $200 in income and should be taxed as should anyone that walks away from a house that is underwater. Btw my grammar is awful
 
2012-04-07 12:35:39 AM  

EvilHomer: t. If all of the people that have cancer stop paying their credit card


The issue isn't that she had cancer, it's that she's now disabled as a result and can't work as a result. How hard exactly is it to have the empathy and compassion for someone who is now disabled and just write off the whole thing?
 
2012-04-07 12:36:34 AM  

TiltingAtWindmills: Begoggle: You are supposed to put $1 in the purchase price field, so you don't have to pay gift tax.

Such an effort would give you a $1 basis in the asset, making its entire remaining value taxable at the time you sold it. In short, this is a terrible, terrible, terrible idea. (Unless you plan to exhaust all value of the asset, but even then, the gift tax has such a high floor that this sort of maneuver would only be worthwhile on a high-dollar asset, and then you'd have virtually no chance of getting by with this-so still terrible. And any gift tax is paid by the donor, who presumably has more resources to pay.)


It doesn't work on vehicles, anyway. The sales tax based on the bluebook value is added to the first registration fee for a previously registered vehicle.

On the funny side, though, is when people were first offered 179 deductions and zero'd their depreciable new vehicles the year of purchase... and then went to trade them off for new ones a year or two later. "You mean... I can't keep my 5 year depreciation deduction on the Escalade that I only owned for 14 months?!" Yucks all around.
 
2012-04-07 12:37:42 AM  

Two_Noodles:
So yes. It's retarded. It's like taxing Social Security benefits.


You are aware that Social Security benefits are not always exempt from taxation, right?

The plain fact of the matter is that she realized $91k. She no longer has an obligation to pay that back. Ergo, income. Taxable, since there is no "I got cancer and can't work" exclusion provision.

She can't claim insolvency, she can't claim uncollectability.

The IRS will place a lien on her home if it does not accept an OIC that she might apply for. She MIGHT be able to start an installment agreement.

Futhermore, if she's only living on SS, how is she making her mortgage payments?
 
2012-04-07 12:38:01 AM  

kd1s: Some advice if you are disabled and wish to get your student loans discharged.

First, if you own property you should create a C-Corporation and transfer ownership of all property to the C-Corp. Register the corporation in your state as an LLC.

Then name your children, nephews, nieces, brothers, sisters or parents as officers. Use an attorney as manager.

Let the IRS try to put liens on a corporation. Ain't gonna happen.


Corporate veil.
 
2012-04-07 12:39:55 AM  

WhyteRaven74: EvilHomer: t. If all of the people that have cancer stop paying their credit card

The issue isn't that she had cancer, it's that she's now disabled as a result and can't work as a result. How hard exactly is it to have the empathy and compassion for someone who is now disabled and just write off the whole thing?


You are really expecting empathy and compassion from the IRS?
 
2012-04-07 12:40:17 AM  

cryinoutloud: I'd just tell them to fark off and ignore it. There's absolutely nothing I can do about it anyway. I'm DISABLED. I'm not going to earn any money. If the IRS decides to suck the money out of me somehow, there isn't much I can do about that either.



The IRS can garnish your Social Security check. (new window)

Among the government creditors who can grab a piece of your Social Security check, the strongest arm belongs to the IRS. Via the Federal Payment Levy Program, Social Security benefits are subject to a 15 percent levy to pay delinquent taxes. Unlike nontax debts to other agencies, for which the first $750 of your monthly benefits are off-limits to garnishment, the IRS can take its 15 percent cut regardless of how little money you're left with. Lump-sum death benefits and Social Security benefits paid to children are not subject to this levy.
 
2012-04-07 12:40:41 AM  

relhak: Between the two federal departments, they knocked $65k off her debts. Unless the IRS has far more aggressive collection capabilities, she's way ahead.


Free hint: The IRS can have very aggressive collections. They may not start out hyper-aggressive, but they have way more escalation potential than the Dept. of Education.

You can't be convicted in Federal Court of failure to repay student loans. You can do hard time in Federal Prison if the IRS wants to play hardball on debt collection.
 
2012-04-07 12:43:47 AM  

Silverstaff: relhak: Between the two federal departments, they knocked $65k off her debts. Unless the IRS has far more aggressive collection capabilities, she's way ahead.


Free hint: The IRS can have very aggressive collections. They may not start out hyper-aggressive, but they have way more escalation potential than the Dept. of Education.

You can't be convicted in Federal Court of failure to repay student loans. You can do hard time in Federal Prison if the IRS wants to play hardball on debt collection.


You don't go to jail unless it's fraud. We don't have debtors prisons in this country anymore.
 
2012-04-07 12:47:20 AM  
Look for all you people who can't get off the "Well the law says she has to pay so that is what it is!" We understand that is what the law says. Nobody is saying "No the law doesn't say that." What we are saying is the law is farking stupid. Student loan debt is almost impossible to get out of. As such a discharge of the debt like this is only because this person has no money, and no way to ever make money. As such taxing it is beyond retarded. Particularly since they don't tax it when the debt is discharged because you worked for someone that is eligible for the discharge program.

We aren't arguing what the law IS, we are saying it is dumb and should be changed.
 
2012-04-07 12:55:41 AM  
Fed loans money. Money goes to school. Student gets education and debt.

Money that went to school already was subject to taxes and is subject to interest.

Forgiven debt shouldn't be taxed. The government is double dipping at this point.
 
2012-04-07 01:02:28 AM  

matt_in_stl: Money that went to school already was subject to taxes and is subject to interest.


No. It wasn't. Loan proceeds are not recognized income and are not subject to income taxation.

Did you pay income tax on your car loan? If you've taken out a mortgage, did you pay income tax on the whole amount borrowed right then and there?

/policy debate is fine, but let's stop saying shiat that's wrong
 
2012-04-07 01:08:54 AM  
I do have compassion and do feel bad. but the fact is that she accrued this debt and the loan issuer has now taken a $91,000 loss. so right now it sucks for both sides. the issuer wrote off the loss and issued her a 1099. mind you they are still out the money. The IRS deems this as income. Now if the IRS decide to work out something (and the do sometimes), than that is wonderful but compassion has nothing to do with the facts.
On another note Student loans are going to be the next bubble. It is actually scary how many are not being paid back and the average amount of SL debt. Imagine SL's tighten up and that goes away ...oooff
 
2012-04-07 01:08:57 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Two_Noodles:
So yes. It's retarded. It's like taxing Social Security benefits.

You are aware that Social Security benefits are not always exempt from taxation, right?

The plain fact of the matter is that she realized $91k. She no longer has an obligation to pay that back. Ergo, income. Taxable, since there is no "I got cancer and can't work" exclusion provision.

She can't claim insolvency, she can't claim uncollectability.

The IRS will place a lien on her home if it does not accept an OIC that she might apply for. She MIGHT be able to start an installment agreement.

Futhermore, if she's only living on SS, how is she making her mortgage payments?


Not sure what OIC is.

I do realize SS benefits are not always exempt...there is no good reason for this. They could reduce the benefit for those with large incomes. Six of one, half dozen of the other?

As for the lien. Sure. Plenty of people die from incurable cancer without a cent to leave their relatives. If that's the game, then she shouldn't have to pay her mortgage until after she dies. (Remember, SS is for subsistence, not monetary gain).

Sycraft is right. Retarded laws are retarded.
 
2012-04-07 01:09:44 AM  

TiltingAtWindmills: matt_in_stl: Money that went to school already was subject to taxes and is subject to interest.

No. It wasn't. Loan proceeds are not recognized income and are not subject to income taxation.

Did you pay income tax on your car loan? If you've taken out a mortgage, did you pay income tax on the whole amount borrowed right then and there?

/policy debate is fine, but let's stop saying shiat that's wrong


The money I pay for a car loan is income for car loan company employees. The employees pay their income tax.

One way or another, government is getting their fair share out of the deal. They just need to stop being greedy by double dipping.

They should be going after the large corporations that put the government in their financial predicament in the first place.
 
2012-04-07 01:12:08 AM  

FizixJunkee: Gyrfalcon:

Moreover, were I to become disabled, I'd far rather work with the loan officers for a reduced payment than with the IRS agents who want all their money now. Those f*ckers don't care. And you can default on a loan. You can't default on a tax payment.

You can't default on a government-backed student loan, either...at least, not indefinitely. Eventually, the government will garnish your paychecks, take any tax refunds owed, etc. The government WILL get its money from you, one way or another.


True, and I've met that before. But what I meant was, it's still easier than having the IRS come and rip the still-beating heart from your chest plus filing criminal charges because you got blood all over their agent.
 
2012-04-07 01:15:52 AM  

matt_in_stl: TiltingAtWindmills: matt_in_stl: Money that went to school already was subject to taxes and is subject to interest.

No. It wasn't. Loan proceeds are not recognized income and are not subject to income taxation.

Did you pay income tax on your car loan? If you've taken out a mortgage, did you pay income tax on the whole amount borrowed right then and there?

/policy debate is fine, but let's stop saying shiat that's wrong

The money I pay for a car loan is income for car loan company employees. The employees pay their income tax.

One way or another, government is getting their fair share out of the deal. They just need to stop being greedy by double dipping.

They should be going after the large corporations that put the government in their financial predicament in the first place.


Ok, I've gotta do the notsureifserious.jpg thing here...

Because I'm actually not sure.
 
2012-04-07 01:16:08 AM  

matt_in_stl: The money I pay for a car loan is income for car loan company employees. The employees pay their income tax.


By this logic, virtually all money has previously been taxed, and thus should be immune to taxation. Our system of taxation is based on transactions as realization events-not on some abstract notion of justice that works out to "they pay, I don't."
 
2012-04-07 01:16:54 AM  

WhyteRaven74: cuzsis: /but will this work for non-resident students?

U of Chicago is a private school and like most private schools they charge the same tuition to all students regardless of what state they're from. And the financial aid is available to all students regardless of state.

jtown: . What a horrible, terrible way to handle her unexpected debt.

How about just throwing the debt out the window since her inability to repay it is in no way her fault? No lien, no nothing.


If she has equity in her home, she is not unable to pay. She's unable to pay right now because her equity is tied up. That's what a lien is for.

I don't understand why people think getting cancer should be like winning the lottery.
 
Displayed 50 of 279 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report