Uh oh....yet another poster who believes his opinions are facts.
I agree, generally.
Get enuf individuals acting similarly,
& you have a trend.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
9% Say they intentionally have not paid back student loans
- Thread starter Clizby Wampuscat
- Start date
& you have a trend.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Education is in the best interest of a society just like security is.
It has nothing to do with "pay your own way" and everything with what's best for the society as it is in society's best interest that citizens are educated.
The money saved can be spend on other things. Like a car, housing, starting a company and creating jobs.
Paying the taxes for free education interferes
with buying cars, houses, etc.
Things have costs. Having government provide
them gratis doesn't make the cost go away.
It simply transfers the cost from the primary
beneficiary to someone else.
I see the solution as a mix of consumers paying,
& government subsidizing to some extent, which
should vary depending on the service, eg, more
for primary school, less for hobby degrees.
Last edited:
Of course it is wrong to receive tax-sustained loans and not pay them back.
However, that is not the whole story. We must ask ourselves how much real choice those people had; what is the best way ahead for the well-being of not only government funds, but also USA society; how families and individual people currently deal with the rather hefty duties that student loans impose on them; whether it is even moral to expect people to make the sort of decisions that are tied to student loans instead of accepting that higher education should be funded by the State (to which degree is a can of worms of its own); and whether it is even possible to reach the demand of higher qualification jobs without some mechanism to make access to that education possible.
Frankly, this is the sort of subject matter where left-wing politics must be heard with a lot of respect and attention.
The link that @Jayhawker Soule posted early in this thread is very recommended reading.
However, that is not the whole story. We must ask ourselves how much real choice those people had; what is the best way ahead for the well-being of not only government funds, but also USA society; how families and individual people currently deal with the rather hefty duties that student loans impose on them; whether it is even moral to expect people to make the sort of decisions that are tied to student loans instead of accepting that higher education should be funded by the State (to which degree is a can of worms of its own); and whether it is even possible to reach the demand of higher qualification jobs without some mechanism to make access to that education possible.
Frankly, this is the sort of subject matter where left-wing politics must be heard with a lot of respect and attention.
The link that @Jayhawker Soule posted early in this thread is very recommended reading.
So if they changed the name of federal student loans to get rid of the word "loan," would that address your concern on that issue?
Why should you pay for a portion of the incentive grant to build a factory that makes cars you'll never drive? Why should people not on medicare pay for people who are?
Student loan forgiveness would provide a lot of social benefit. It's government's job to find ways to use policy to achieve social benefit.
It's already treated differently from other loans. For instance, student loans can't be discharged by bankruptcy the way most other loans can be.
It's always "right and ethical" to implement policies that help struggling people. The fact that people struggled - and in many cases, failed - under similar burdens in the past is a reason to do something; it isn't a reason to do nothing.
"When I had my heart attack, I had to be airlifted to a hospital an hour away! I paid thousands for that airlift and got major heart damage from the delay in treatment. It would be unfair to me if you built a hospital here in town to stop others from going through what I went through!"
In addition to student loans, there are business
loans that government forgives.
BTW, if anyone has a loan forgiven, you will be liable
for income tax on the forgiven principal, & possibly
on forgiven interest (a more complex matter).
You can't be destitute to have a loan forgiven because
you must be able to afford the tax on it. (I've had
some loan re-negotiations, & paid such income tax.)
If you have a loan that might be waived, see your CPA.
loans that government forgives.
BTW, if anyone has a loan forgiven, you will be liable
for income tax on the forgiven principal, & possibly
on forgiven interest (a more complex matter).
You can't be destitute to have a loan forgiven because
you must be able to afford the tax on it. (I've had
some loan re-negotiations, & paid such income tax.)
If you have a loan that might be waived, see your CPA.
And that is in and of itself a very big reason to question the wisdom of relying so much on the willingness of people to be indebted for life.
Another is the moral impact of that situation. When people realize that there is no reasonable way forward that will make them financially solvent and also socially accepted, they will quickly convince themselves that it is no big deal to be insolvent. Wealth and poverty will be perceived as somewhat fictional or even political constructs. That is not healthy.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
It would not as it would be a far smaller cut of the budget with many payers.
See if you divide the cost over 300 million tax payers, the portion that each person pays is far less then when it needs to be financed fully by only the students.
That makes education less accessible which results in lesser students which means an even higher cost for the individual student.
And then you get in a situation where a quality education is pretty much only for the rich.
No, really? Well how about that.
Yes, to society.
I'm not even talking about hobby degrees. I'm merely talking about producing the next generation of workers and accessible talent maximization for all.
I also don't have any issues with entry tests for that reason. I'm very much for that.
Why shouldn't society make sure people can get the education they need?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Let me just say that if we don't invest in providing a thorough education for people from all income ranges, we will gradually slip to become a second-rate country. How much potential talent have we already missed because of not being able to afford post high school educations?
And treating this like it's a zero-sum game ignores the reality of the situation.
Higher levels of education are correlated with lower incarceration rates and lower usage rates for social services. On the whole, the more people who get degrees, the less it costs to provide government services.
And on the revenue side, income level - and therefore income tax paid - goes up with level of education.
This analysis found that taking someone from "high school graduate" to "bachelor's degree" increases their lifetime total income tax paid by ~$100,000 to $150,000 (2002 dollars).
On the cost side, it's a bit trickier for me to tease out what the cost reductions associated with college would be (they used "some high school" as their baseline, not "high school graduate"), but the savings is still substantial.
... so we have to realize that when someone says things like "I don't want to subsidize other people's college," what they're really saying is something more like "I'd rather spend $3 on social programs and prisons than spend $1 on college subsidies AND get $1 for other stuff."
Last edited:
That you think my friends are liars without asking clarifying question says more about you than it does about them.
Did you miss the part where I mentioned one of them still lives with their parents and the other lives in a small apartment with their partner?
Where did you get this erroneous notion from?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
What part specifically do you want me to provide source for?
What are you calling an erroneous notion exactly?
You seem to be under the impression that higher ed is a for-profit corporate enterprise rather than focused on providing a public service. I will grant there are for-profit higher ed venues, but that doesn't represent the majority of higher ed. Your statement would hold true for those specific cases, but not for higher ed as a whole. And honestly, I'm not sure it'd even hold true for those cases as exploitation of students by for-profit higher ed corporations has been really, really bad.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
I am ok with changing the system. But the bottom line is people voluntarily borrowed the money, they need to repay that money.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
That is how it is in here in Brazil, and I would be genuinely amazed if it was any different in the US, given the rampant capitalism.
Curiously, the most well-known good quality private university in Brazil is non-profit, but it is among the most expensive universities in this country... I wonder how being non-profit benefits anyone on this case though
...
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
What? If a person took out a loan they need to repay it. You cannot change the name and just say it was not a loan after the fact. I am dealing with the issue. They need to pay back what they borrowed.
I shouldn't.
So would mortgage forgiveness, credit card or any debt forgiveness.
So what, they still borrowed the money and need to pay it back at the terms they agreed to.
So we bail out everyone that is struggling to pay any loan? The thing to do is to help the repay the loan by changing payment plans so they can repay it.
Huh?
Interesting, I didn't know that about Brazil. Yeah, it is different here, but it is also complicated.That is how it is in here in Brazil, and I would be genuinely amazed if it was any different in the US, given the rampant capitalism.
Curiously, the most well-known good quality private university in Brazil is non-profit, but it is among the most expensive universities in this country... I wonder how being non-profit benefits anyone on this case though
At least at the public universities, everything is very student-centered and research-centered (if it is also a major research institution - not all universities are). Historically, public universities in this country enjoyed strong state and federal support so their budgets were more or less taken care of with public tax dollars (as it should be, given an educated citizenry is a public good and helps the nation remain prosperous and competitive internationally).
Over the past few decades, though, universities nationwide have had to deal with significant reductions in state/federal support in their budgets. Universities have tried to weather this the best they can, but it has, unfortunately, forced them to in some cases operate more like a corporation. They have to, when public tax dollar support now doesn't even cover 50% of the budget. So the main reason university administration now has to care about money is because of this political problem we have in this country about properly supporting public higher education. It's an unfortunate and complicated situation, so it is more of a both/and when it comes to loan forgiveness benefiting students as well as helping universities stay in operation as legislators fail to do their jobs.
This is a long article, but it kind of does a good job of summarizing the mess:
Two Decades of Change in Federal and State Higher Education Funding
States and the federal government have long provided substantial financial support for higher education, but in recent years, their respective levels of contribution have shifted significantly.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Interesting, I didn't know that about Brazil. Yeah, it is different here, but it is also complicated.
At least at the public universities, everything is very student-centered and research-centered (if it is also a major research institution - not all universities are). Historically, public universities in this country enjoyed strong state and federal support so their budgets were more or less taken care of with public tax dollars (as it should be, given an educated citizenry is a public good and helps the nation remain prosperous and competitive internationally).
Over the past few decades, though, universities nationwide have had to deal with significant reductions in state/federal support in their budgets. Universities have tried to weather this the best they can, but it has, unfortunately, forced them to in some cases operate more like a corporation. They have to, when public tax dollar support now doesn't even cover 50% of the budget. So the main reason university administration now has to care about money is because of this political problem we have in this country about properly supporting public higher education. It's an unfortunate and complicated situation, so it is more of a both/and when it comes to loan forgiveness benefiting students as well as helping universities stay in operation as legislators fail to do their jobs.
This is a long article, but it kind of does a good job of summarizing the mess:
Two Decades of Change in Federal and State Higher Education Funding
States and the federal government have long provided substantial financial support for higher education, but in recent years, their respective levels of contribution have shifted significantly.www.pewtrusts.org
Just to clarify: Do you mean that students have to pay to study at public universities?
If so, that's quite different from what we have here. Public universities here in Brazil are among the best universities, and whoever manages to study in them doesn't have to pay a cent. It is completely free of charge. There is, however, a huge problem. The number of people interested in pursuing a degree has increased exponentially, but the number of vacancies made available every year has not. It all comes down to scoring high in an yearly admission exam, roughly equivalent to the SAT (except for affirmative action, nothing else is taken into consideration... GPA, for example, is absolutely irrelevant). If, however, the student doesn't manage to join a public university, there are many private universities, with highly varying prices, willing to admit new students, with nearly limitless vacancies, generally with no entry barrier other than being able to afford them.
Since the government didn't want to substancially increase spending in public universities, and since private universities saw the opportunity to make a huge profit, about 15 years ago the government started promoting student loans at low rates for the poor. The number of students making using of this loan reached it's peak in 2014 with around 700.000 students. Ever since then, the number has decreased. If I could guess as to why, I am going to attribute it to the economic decline and the arrival of a cheaper alternative: education at a distance, which we refer to as EAD. EAD offers online lessons (generally at low quality) for a MUCH cheaper price (up to 10x cheaper, and I am not kidding) and the exact same graduation degree. EAD is not avaiable for every course though like law school and medical school.