The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Rushy on August 24, 2022, 07:30:14 PM
-
Obviously this is the best use of $300 billion that the Democrat party could think up. Definitely nothing better they could do with that money other than give it directly to the financial sector. Nothing at all.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/24/politics/student-loans-joe-biden-white-house/index.html
Should someone making $124k per year really get $10k of their debt paid off? Does it make sense to contribute so much aid towards the sector of America that is, in general, the most well off?
-
Yeah, that upper limit looked weird. But maybe its for doctors who have alot of debt? Dunno.
-
I guess it depends on how much debt a $124k paid individual has.
According to Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/advisor/student-loans/average-student-loan-statistics/):
- $28,950 owed per borrower on average
(https://i.imgur.com/njXE10I.png)
Seems like people have this debt deep into their lifespan:
(https://i.imgur.com/mKEfaOF.png)
I'm also not sure if all higher education attendees are considered "the most well off". I think part of the reason that one assumes a student loan debt is because they are not "the most well off".
-
Definitely an improvement over standard GOP tax cuts for the wealthy.
-
I guess it depends on how much debt a $124k paid individual has.
According to Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/advisor/student-loans/average-student-loan-statistics/):
- $28,950 owed per borrower on average
(https://i.imgur.com/njXE10I.png)
Seems like people have this debt deep into their lifespan:
(https://i.imgur.com/mKEfaOF.png)
I'm also not sure if all higher education attendees are considered "the most well off". I think part of the reason that one assumes a student loan debt is because they are not "the most well off".
They were given money in the form of loans. Why should they not be required to pay them back? Because of their own incompetence? "wahhh I made poor life choices entirely of my own accord, now it's coming back to bite me!"
In my hot opinion, if you make more than the median salary in the US you should absolutely not be getting money handed to you just to pay off your debts that you voluntarily incurred in the first place.
"The median salary in the U.S. in the second quarter of 2022 was $1,041 per week or $54,132 per year."
Why should someone making more than twice the median salary get free money from the government?
Definitely an improvement over standard GOP tax cuts for the wealthy.
Now instead of giving tax cuts to the wealthy we just pay off their loans for them. That's somehow better? ???
-
I don’t consider someone making 124k/a wealthy anymore. Upper Middle Class maybe.
I also don’t consider kids that were told going to college was the only smart choice and then finding out it wasn’t to have made bad choices.
-
I don’t consider someone making 124k/a wealthy anymore. Upper Middle Class maybe.
It's in the top 5 percentiles
https://personalfinancedata.com/income-percentile-calculator/?min_age=&max_age=&income=125000#results
I generally approve of the policy, but the cut off is ludicrously high.
-
I generally approve of the policy, but the cut off is ludicrously high.
Or save the administrative costs of checking whether people qualify and eliminate the cutoff entirely at that point.
-
I don’t consider someone making 124k/a wealthy anymore. Upper Middle Class maybe.
Then you are utterly disconnected from reality.
I also don’t consider kids that were told going to college was the only smart choice and then finding out it wasn’t to have made bad choices.
Lots of people make bad choices in life. Why do college kids get special monetary credits for theirs? Plenty of people in the US are in much more dire financial need than a bunch of indebted degree-havers.
-
I don’t consider someone making 124k/a wealthy anymore. Upper Middle Class maybe.
Then you are utterly disconnected from reality.
Depends on how you define wealthy.
-
I don’t consider someone making 124k/a wealthy anymore. Upper Middle Class maybe.
Then you are utterly disconnected from reality.
So bold. So edgy.
I also don’t consider kids that were told going to college was the only smart choice and then finding out it wasn’t to have made bad choices.
Lots of people make bad choices in life. Why do college kids get special monetary credits for theirs? Plenty of people in the US are in much more dire financial need than a bunch of indebted degree-havers.
I agree. Let’s help all of them. Next up, single payer healthcare, agreed?
-
I don’t consider someone making 124k/a wealthy anymore. Upper Middle Class maybe.
Then you are utterly disconnected from reality.
Depends on how you define wealthy.
Mysteriously, many define 'wealthy' as "people who make more money than I do". I use a much more simple approach: if you make more than the median salary in your state, you're wealthy. This often rubs a lot of people the wrong way because many very well off and wealthy people don't like to think of themselves that way. They sit around in a 2000 sqft house, thinking they're not wealthy because their neighbor has a house that's 3000 sqft.
So bold. So edgy.
This is almost as bad as the time Roundy thought it was odd that most posters here didn't have vacation homes.
I agree. Let’s help all of them. Next up, single payer healthcare, agreed?
Yes, absolutely, but not 'next up'. This student loan meme should be completely reverted.
-
We are just operating under different definitions of wealthy I’ll concede the limit of 124k jumps up quite a lot. My solution would be the same as Xasop’s, just give everyone free education.
-
We are just operating under different definitions of wealthy I’ll concede the limit of 124k jumps up quite a lot. My solution would be the same as Xasop’s, just give everyone free education.
Giving everyone 'free education' does nothing but incentivize already overpriced and overindulged universities to continue their track record of needless extravagance.
-
We are just operating under different definitions of wealthy I’ll concede the limit of 124k jumps up quite a lot. My solution would be the same as Xasop’s, just give everyone free education.
Giving everyone 'free education' does nothing but incentivize already overpriced and overindulged universities to continue their track record of needless extravagance.
Then regulate them. Many countries have figured this out, it’s not that hard.
-
Then regulate them. Many countries have figured this out, it’s not that hard.
Who exactly wants to regulate them in America? If I vote for the Democrats, they give universities what amounts to free infinite money. If I vote for Republicans, they do literally nothing. Seems like two very bad options to me.
-
I don’t consider someone making 124k/a wealthy anymore. Upper Middle Class maybe.
Technically that is upper middle class, but upper middle class is fairly wealthy when compared to the majority of Americans.
"In 2020, about 90% of employed people made less than $125,000 in total income." https://flowingdata.com/2022/01/26/how-much-americans-make/
I also don’t consider kids that were told going to college was the only smart choice and then finding out it wasn’t to have made bad choices.
Well, it's still not. Most places still use a bachelor degree as a general requirement.
Anyway, higher education should be free. We need more doctors and teachers.
-
Who exactly wants to regulate them in America? If I vote for the Democrats, they give universities what amounts to free infinite money. If I vote for Republicans, they do literally nothing. Seems like two very bad options to me.
The fact that your current political system is too crippled to do anything useful does not prevent us from discussing what a good solution might look like.
-
Anyway, higher education should be free. We need more doctors and teachers.
I'm not sure about that. I mean, it was free in my day. Now it isn't and in the UK if you go to Uni you're coming out of the place with £30k or debt, which seems to me a ridiculous burden to put on kids who are just starting out in life. I think there's a middle ground. I don't think the principle of paying something for further education is bad - in principle it leads to higher salaries. But the debt burden in the UK is far too high right now.
-
The limit of 125k might have been made for those who live in very large and expensive cities.
I don't really have a dog in this fight since I've never had a student loan. I almost wonder if Biden should have done nothing here. He's getting grief for spending money on non-millionaires from the conservatives who probably feel it would be better spent by tax cuts for the super rich. And on the other side he's getting shit from lefties who think he should have cancelled all student debt.
-
Could be the high cost is because of cities.
The median income varies by location. $125k/year is insane in say... The fields of Oklahoma. But is pretty close to normal in Manhattan.
As a federal law, it has to apply to everyone equally. So they probably took the highest point and went there.
Like Doctors in NYC range from 27k - 250k a year.
And their loans: almost 200k
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/student-loans/average-medical-school-debt/#:~:text=Average%20Medical%20School%20Debt%20for,said%20they%20had%20education%20debt.
-
I use a much more simple approach: if you make more than the median salary in your state, you're wealthy. T
So any individual making over $33,000/yr. where I live is wealthy. I'm guessing more than a few individuals are disconnected from Rushy reality.
Yes, that's still true. If you live in a very low cost of living (or generally just plain poor state), then making some amount more than the median means you are making more than the majority of people in the state. If we don't define wealth as "more than most people", how exactly do we define it? Is "wealthy" just the top 5%? The top 1%? Is only 10 people on the planet wealthy and the rest are broke?
The fact that your current political system is too crippled to do anything useful does not prevent us from discussing what a good solution might look like.
It prevents the discussion from being useful. Intellectual masturbation discussions are your thing, not mine.
Could be the high cost is because of cities.
The median income varies by location. $125k/year is insane in say... The fields of Oklahoma. But is pretty close to normal in Manhattan.
As a federal law, it has to apply to everyone equally. So they probably took the highest point and went there.
Like Doctors in NYC range from 27k - 250k a year.
And their loans: almost 200k
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/student-loans/average-medical-school-debt/#:~:text=Average%20Medical%20School%20Debt%20for,said%20they%20had%20education%20debt.
The median individual income in New York City is 34,386 USD. A doctor making $100k/year is not in some kind of existential danger that requires the government help pay off their loans.
-
I use a much more simple approach: if you make more than the median salary in your state, you're wealthy. T
So any individual making over $33,000/yr. where I live is wealthy. I'm guessing more than a few individuals are disconnected from Rushy reality.
Yes, that's still true. If you live in a very low cost of living (or generally just plain poor state), then making some amount more than the median means you are making more than the majority of people in the state. If we don't define wealth as "more than most people", how exactly do we define it? Is "wealthy" just the top 5%? The top 1%? Is only 10 people on the planet wealthy and the rest are broke?
Which goes to my original statement. "Wealthy" is quite subjective. You telling someone who makes $40K a year that they're "wealthy" surely would elicit the response that you are "utterly disconnected from reality."
-
NYC is broken up into alot of areas, economically. Taking an average median of the whole city is like averaging all of America then wondering why there are so many poor people in North Carolina.
Manhattan (which I referenced) has a high median compared to
The Bronx, which is 41,000.
Brooklyn is 53,000
Queens is 72,000
Statan island is 85,000
NYC has some crazy ass economic range.
-
Which goes to my original statement. "Wealthy" is quite subjective. You telling someone who makes $40K a year that they're "wealthy" surely would elicit the response that you are "utterly disconnected from reality."
People making more than most of the people around them do tend to be unaware of their predicament, that's true, but I don't see the relevance. Telling them "you're wealthy" only to hear "nooooooo ur rong!" is not unexpected (in fact I expect it more often than not). At 40k they're making about 30% more than most of the people around them if the median salary is 30k.
Most people don't like thinking they are wealthy because it shakes their moral stances. This is also why you can watch popular celebrities go from having little or no money to suddenly being millionaires, then, through the power of mental magic, being a millionaire isn't wealthy anymore. "nooooo, I'm not wealthy, it's the billionaires that are the problem!"
NYC is broken up into alot of areas, economically. Taking an average median of the whole city is like averaging all of America then wondering why there are so many poor people in North Carolina.
Manhattan (which I referenced) has a high median compared to
The Bronx, which is 41,000.
Brooklyn is 53,000
Queens is 72,000
Statan island is 85,000
NYC has some crazy ass economic range.
Rich people live next to other rich people in their rich neighborhoods. Do you think I should qualify as not being wealthy because I live in neighborhood of other rich people, Dave? "I'm not rich, I can't be, I only have a 4000 sqft mansion, my neighbor's is 7000 sqft. He's the rich person, not me."
The salaries should absolutely be viewed as one unit and not broken up into rich/poor areas. Someone making $100k/year living in a Manhattan apartment isn't "not wealthy" just because they've chosen to live in a expensive area. A rich man isn't poor just because he chose to buy a Ferrari.
-
@Rushy
Forgetting all the mean income stuff for a moment.
What must an individual be able to afford to do for you to consider them wealthy?
-
Rich people live next to other rich people in their rich neighborhoods. Do you think I should qualify as not being wealthy because I live in neighborhood of other rich people, Dave? "I'm not rich, I can't be, I only have a 4000 sqft mansion, my neighbor's is 7000 sqft. He's the rich person, not me."
The salaries should absolutely be viewed as one unit and not broken up into rich/poor areas. Someone making $100k/year living in a Manhattan apartment isn't "not wealthy" just because they've chosen to live in a expensive area. A rich man isn't poor just because he chose to buy a Ferrari.
No, but my point is that what we consider to be poor varies based on location. You could easily say "What? You make only $20k in Louisiana doing factory work? Move to NYC and get a job making $50k doing the same thing!" Not realizng that $20K in Louisiana would probably go just as far there as $50K in NYC would. Cost of living and all that crap.
Now we don't know why that number was chosen for a single individual. Double for a married couple. For all we know, they looked at the average data of people with student loan debt, looked at the highest salary reported on their taxes, and took that.
ie. If 43 million people who had student loan debt had an income between 0 and 125K, they just went with 125k as the limit.
But what I am saying, just to hammer my point home, is that whatever the number is, it would have to account for every area of America, not some average of the whole nation, which is not going to be reflective of people living in cities and is way too high for people living in rural areas.
-
If anyone is really interested, there's a ton of data in here that I think helped inform the latest proposal:
Trends in College Pricing and Student Aid 2021 (https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/trends-college-pricing-student-aid-2021.pdf)
It's all very complicated because there are so many factors. Debt to Income ratio is a biggy. Cost of living is another. And many more.
As for what is "wealthy", again, very complicated. Wealthy to me means I wouldn't need student loans at all. Or perhaps becoming wealthy, pay them off right quick so as not to incur interest. Is there a problem with "wealthy" people not paying their student loan debts?
-
No, but my point is that what we consider to be poor varies based on location. You could easily say "What? You make only $20k in Louisiana doing factory work? Move to NYC and get a job making $50k doing the same thing!" Not realizng that $20K in Louisiana would probably go just as far there as $50K in NYC would. Cost of living and all that crap.
The mean salary across the US varies quite little between cities. It only changes significantly when you start drilling down to rich areas versus impoverished areas because naturally rich people tend to congregate together to keep the poors out.
Now we don't know why that number was chosen for a single individual. Double for a married couple. For all we know, they looked at the average data of people with student loan debt, looked at the highest salary reported on their taxes, and took that.
ie. If 43 million people who had student loan debt had an income between 0 and 125K, they just went with 125k as the limit.
But what I am saying, just to hammer my point home, is that whatever the number is, it would have to account for every area of America, not some average of the whole nation, which is not going to be reflective of people living in cities and is way too high for people living in rural areas.
No one here is mentioning averages, which are a terrible metric for determining the real struggle of people regarding income in a certain area. There is no place in America where a $125k salary is, by any stretch of the imagination, not obscenely wealthy. Just because that person makes $125k in a coastal city "barely gets by" in his coastal city apartment is completely irrelevant. If a person wants to move to a big city, then they can make that choice and live with it. No one should feel sorry for anyone making more than twice the median HOUSEHOLD income in the US.
Student debt is very interesting. Let's take a look at a fella that the BBC interviewed:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62667867
"When Matthew Henderson graduated from Loyola University, he had limited his borrowing as much as possible.
Keen to pay off the roughly $20,000 he owed the federal government for his three-year programme, he began looking for work."
See, very understandable and respectable.
The political science and history major opted to further his education with a master's in legal studies from Washington University in St Louis.
Oh.
"Even though it was only an accelerated one-year programme, it still cost about $60,000, which was pretty much funded entirely through student loans," he said.
Oh...
For Mr Henderson, the move is "a great step, but I'm not certain it's the best he [Biden] could have done".
"I hoped to see him forgive up to $50,000," he concedes, nodding to more ambitious Democratic Party proposals turned down by the president.
It's almost like we should not reward idiots like this guy with free government money. It's amazing that the Dems would be so eager to give free money to a small portion of the population, thereby ensuring the rest are either neutral on the subject or enraged.
-
You know. I was having kinda a mediocre day. Imagine my change in attitude when I discovered I was "obscenely wealthy."
Funny thing is, my MAGA, Trump loving, anti-vaxer, covid denier sister-in-law once told my wife we make too much money. Guess she was right after all.
-
You know. I was having kinda a mediocre day. Imagine my change in attitude when I discovered I was "obscenely wealthy."
Funny thing is, my MAGA, Trump loving, anti-vaxer, covid denier sister-in-law once told my wife we make too much money. Guess she was right after all.
Nice brag, mate. But it was pretty obvious given how defensive you've been. Just imagine how we feel if you feel like this even after making more than twice the median HOUSEHOLD income in the US.
Are you struggling to pay off your student loans?
-
It's almost like we should not reward idiots like this guy with free government money. It's amazing that the Dems would be so eager to give free money to a small portion of the population, thereby ensuring the rest are either neutral on the subject or enraged.
2017 Tax cuts (expiring 2025):
According to an analysis released by the Tax Policy Center (TPC) on Dec. 18, 2017, the law was expected to raise the after-tax income of 80.4% of households in 2018, but that cut was not distributed evenly or progressively. The analysis revealed that the tax break would hit 93.7% of taxpayers in the highest-earning quintile, and only 53.9% of those in the lowest quintile.
43
Even so, on average, every quintile was expected to receive a tax break.
That is no longer expected to be true once individual tax cuts expire after 2025. At that point, the TPC estimates that the majority of taxpayers—53.4%—will face a tax increase: 69.7% of those in the middle quintile (40th to 60th percentile) will pay more, compared to just 8% of the highest-earning 0.1%.
44
If I'm reading that right, as far as the eagerness to give free money to a small portion of the population goes, it seems kinda weird that almost all in the smallest population reap the benefits whereas only half in the largest population will do the same.
-
You know. I was having kinda a mediocre day. Imagine my change in attitude when I discovered I was "obscenely wealthy."
Funny thing is, my MAGA, Trump loving, anti-vaxer, covid denier sister-in-law once told my wife we make too much money. Guess she was right after all.
Nice brag, mate. But it was pretty obvious given how defensive you've been. Just imagine how we feel if you feel like this even after making more than twice the median HOUSEHOLD income in the US.
Are you struggling to pay off your student loans?
Not being defensive. If someone wants to label me as wealthy that's fine. Just having a little discussion. Trying to figure out what Rushy believes being wealthy actually means. That's why I asked him what he thinks a wealthy person can afford to do. That to me is a more meaningful indicator than some arbitrary financial line. I've actually never thought about where I'd draw the line as to what wealthy is. Though I don't consider myself wealthy (to Rushy's point some will) I could perhaps be persuaded to change my perception. I'm well aware of how nice I have it, and how fortunate I am to be where I'm at and if not wealthy I'm definitely comfortably well off. I'm a product of fortunate timing, some good luck, mostly good decisions, a decent work ethic, and a slight modicum of intelligence.
I do find the idea that anyone making $40,000 a year in the U.S. is "wealthy" quite laughable and I'm quessing most others do as well. If we're playing Family Feud and the question is "How much does someone have to make a year to be wealthy?" $40K isn't going to be on the board. That being said, $125K might though I think the lowest answer would be higher. $40K is about where my son's at and I can't wait to see his reaction when I tell him he's wealthy. My other son is on his way to being obscenely wealthy but he's more around the median household level currently. I'm guessing it will take him another 5+ years before he's obscenely wealthy. He did have student loans which he paid off reasonably quickly.
I never had student loans. Part of that fortunate timing and good luck thing. I was able to work my way through school without having to borrow money to pay for it.
-
I never had student loans. Part of that fortunate timing and good luck thing. I was able to work my way through school without having to borrow money to pay for it
My other son is on his way to being obscenely wealthy but he's more around the median household level currently. I'm guessing it will take him another 5+ years before he's obscenely wealthy. He did have student loans which he paid off reasonably quickly.
Then I don't know why we're having this conversation.
-
I never had student loans. Part of that fortunate timing and good luck thing. I was able to work my way through school without having to borrow money to pay for it
My other son is on his way to being obscenely wealthy but he's more around the median household level currently. I'm guessing it will take him another 5+ years before he's obscenely wealthy. He did have student loans which he paid off reasonably quickly.
Then I don't know why we're having this conversation.
Well, like I said, I was trying to figure out what Rushy's real view on wealth is. The idea of what is considered wealth is an interesting concept. I guess it is a digression from the topic at hand but the subject kinda came out of the discussion as sometime happens on forums and I'm fine with returning to lurking moar.
-
Well, like I said, I was trying to figure out what Rushy's real view on wealth is. The idea of what is considered wealth is an interesting concept. I guess it is a digression from the topic at hand but the subject kinda came out of the discussion as sometime happens on forums and I'm fine with returning to lurking moar.
If someone can pay off their student loans quickly then it likely means they are wealthy relatively speaking. It is pretty subjective, sure, but many many people are in debt for a long time with student loans and over half of the American population is one pay check away from being homeless.
We should not be getting hung up on this topic simply because you don't want to think you're wealthy when you're not even struggling with the literal topic of this thread. From the OP:
Should someone making $124k per year really get $10k of their debt paid off? Does it make sense to contribute so much aid towards the sector of America that is, in general, the most well off?
And I think we've answered that question.
-
Should someone making $124k per year really get $10k of their debt paid off? Does it make sense to contribute so much aid towards the sector of America that is, in general, the most well off?
And I think we've answered that question.
Don't believe I've disagreed with that here.
-
As a tax payer, my understanding is this will cost me $2000 easily till I die. Sole proprietor most my life working 50 years and still going. Been audited 3 times, 1 no change, fucker came to my office packing heat, what a bitch I thought after he threatened me he could audit me for 7 years at a drop of a hat. Other two, in the IRS office and they got their quota $2500 off me, but had the nerve to tell me "You're an honest man". Don't ever take earned income tax credit..totally auditable very high percentile.
Now this, shit I paid my kids college fees of $100K with blood, sweat and tears and a lotta help from a dead relatives inheritance.
The wife and I never had an adjusted gross over $70k combined in 45 years. Today I collect over $2400 in SS, so in that you know I paid my taxes.Wife has retirement and a nice SS, we still own our business and I guess I'm rich? No Debt...
Way to go Brandon and fuck you lazy bitchez.
-
You know. I was having kinda a mediocre day. Imagine my change in attitude when I discovered I was "obscenely wealthy."
Funny thing is, my MAGA, Trump loving, anti-vaxer, covid denier sister-in-law once told my wife we make too much money. Guess she was right after all.
Nice brag, mate. But it was pretty obvious given how defensive you've been. Just imagine how we feel if you feel like this even after making more than twice the median HOUSEHOLD income in the US.
Are you struggling to pay off your student loans?
Not being defensive. If someone wants to label me as wealthy that's fine. Just having a little discussion. Trying to figure out what Rushy believes being wealthy actually means. That's why I asked him what he thinks a wealthy person can afford to do. That to me is a more meaningful indicator than some arbitrary financial line. I've actually never thought about where I'd draw the line as to what wealthy is. Though I don't consider myself wealthy (to Rushy's point some will) I could perhaps be persuaded to change my perception. I'm well aware of how nice I have it, and how fortunate I am to be where I'm at and if not wealthy I'm definitely comfortably well off. I'm a product of fortunate timing, some good luck, mostly good decisions, a decent work ethic, and a slight modicum of intelligence.
I do find the idea that anyone making $40,000 a year in the U.S. is "wealthy" quite laughable and I'm quessing most others do as well. If we're playing Family Feud and the question is "How much does someone have to make a year to be wealthy?" $40K isn't going to be on the board. That being said, $125K might though I think the lowest answer would be higher. $40K is about where my son's at and I can't wait to see his reaction when I tell him he's wealthy. My other son is on his way to being obscenely wealthy but he's more around the median household level currently. I'm guessing it will take him another 5+ years before he's obscenely wealthy. He did have student loans which he paid off reasonably quickly.
I never had student loans. Part of that fortunate timing and good luck thing. I was able to work my way through school without having to borrow money to pay for it.
Ha ha, wife and I have a $1750 bar/food out budget monthly partying on the water dancing our asses off. Proper cash management, good home investing, 2 houses paid for, we live in both.... Your obscene, were just wealthy. laugh laugh I am the Jones....
-
Conservatives in the US are basically cartoon characters at this point. Helping the middle class with education costs is somehow worse than giving tax breaks to gazillion dollar corporations, which they probably hate anyway for their woke branding trends.
-
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/16/what-student-loan-borrowers-need-to-know-about-the-payment-pause.html
Soon we will find out if the American taxpayer will be forced to give me thousands of dollars to pay off loans I took out or if they'll get away with selfishly using that money for something else, like Medicare or roads.
-
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/16/what-student-loan-borrowers-need-to-know-about-the-payment-pause.html
Soon we will find out if the American taxpayer will be forced to give me thousands of dollars to pay off loans I took out or if they'll get away with selfishly using that money for something else, like Medicare or roads.
Like they put money into those things. Pfft.
-
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/16/what-student-loan-borrowers-need-to-know-about-the-payment-pause.html
Soon we will find out if the American taxpayer will be forced to give me thousands of dollars to pay off loans I took out or if they'll get away with selfishly using that money for something else, like Medicare or roads.
Yes. Only billionaires may be bailed out of debt. This is the way.
-
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/16/what-student-loan-borrowers-need-to-know-about-the-payment-pause.html
Soon we will find out if the American taxpayer will be forced to give me thousands of dollars to pay off loans I took out or if they'll get away with selfishly using that money for something else, like Medicare or roads.
Yes. Only billionaires may be bailed out of debt. This is the way.
Yes, our options are to either pay off student loans or bail out billionaires. Those are our only options. There are no other actions to perform with this money.
-
Silly rabbit. That money should go to the defense budget.
-
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/16/what-student-loan-borrowers-need-to-know-about-the-payment-pause.html
Soon we will find out if the American taxpayer will be forced to give me thousands of dollars to pay off loans I took out or if they'll get away with selfishly using that money for something else, like Medicare or roads.
Yes. Only billionaires may be bailed out of debt. This is the way.
Yes, our options are to either pay off student loans or bail out billionaires. Those are our only options. There are no other actions to perform with this money.
Not sure why you would say that when you listed a couple of other good things to do with money.
-
Like I said, the biggest issue with atudent loans (and most loans really) is how you can borrow $20,000, pay back $30,000, and be told you've got 5 years to go.
Interest is a bitch and banks do NOT want to lose that revenue stream.
Your Credit score is about how much profit they make off you, not how well you pay off debt.
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64802849
The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, will make a final ruling on the cases in June.
Very nice. Can't wait for my Biden bucks.
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64802849
The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, will make a final ruling on the cases in June.
Very nice. Can't wait for my Biden bucks.
I fully expect the court to side with the banks on this.
A nearly limitless profit stream is a conservative wet dream.
-
Supreme Court leaves student loan settlement in place https://www.npr.org/2023/04/13/1169830188/student-loan-forgiveness
-
Supreme Court leaves student loan settlement in place https://www.npr.org/2023/04/13/1169830188/student-loan-forgiveness
Just to be super clear - this is not related to Biden's student loan forgiveness plan.
-
Supreme Court leaves student loan settlement in place https://www.npr.org/2023/04/13/1169830188/student-loan-forgiveness
Just to be super clear - this is not related to Biden's student loan forgiveness plan.
??
Its not? Seems to be.
-edit-
Oohhh, now I see. It was the loan forgiveness they did in november to those who have financial hardships or some such.
Still, its a good sign for the general loan forgiveness. Gives legal precident.
-
It is now dead.
Supreme Court blocks student loan forgiveness plan: live updates | NPR https://www.npr.org/live-updates/supreme-court-student-loan-forgiveness
-
It is now dead.
Supreme Court blocks student loan forgiveness plan: live updates | NPR https://www.npr.org/live-updates/supreme-court-student-loan-forgiveness
Another spot-on prediction there, LD...
-
It is now dead.
Supreme Court blocks student loan forgiveness plan: live updates | NPR https://www.npr.org/live-updates/supreme-court-student-loan-forgiveness
Another spot-on prediction there, LD...
Well it is. SCOTUS said biden does not have the power to do that.
-
Oh no, it turns out Biden isn't using American taxpayer money to pay off my loans after all. I'll have to pay them back myself, oh the humanity! Responsibility for my own actions? Gross. I perish the thought.
-
Oh no, it turns out Biden isn't using American taxpayer money to pay off my loans after all. I'll have to pay them back myself, oh the humanity! Responsibility for my own actions? Gross. I perish the thought.
Hey! I *used to* pay taxes!
-
Oh no, it turns out Biden isn't using American taxpayer money to pay off my loans after all. I'll have to pay them back myself, oh the humanity! Responsibility for my own actions? Gross. I perish the thought.
Slapping a bunch of 18 year olds with huge debt because college is ludicrously expensive is rather gross. I would rather our taxes go to making us better than other places. But I think a more important goal is to make college/universities not so stupidly expensive and then implement debt programs.
-
Oh no, it turns out Biden isn't using American taxpayer money to pay off my loans after all. I'll have to pay them back myself, oh the humanity! Responsibility for my own actions? Gross. I perish the thought.
Slapping a bunch of 18 year olds with huge debt because college is ludicrously expensive is rather gross. I would rather our taxes go to making us better than other places. But I think a more important goal is to make college/universities not so stupidly expensive and then implement debt programs.
Cars and houses are also ludicrously expensive, yet I don't see anyone rushing to pay off mortgages or car loans. I don't see why student loans are so special (aside from being held by such a small part of the US population).
I'd argue that the government's attempts to "fix" college costs with low interest student loans are actually what drove the costs so ludicrously high in the first place. The ability of students to take out massive loans when they have little concept of the value of money is causing universities to get away with overspending. It's much the same reason that the stimulus money given to individuals and businesses drove inflation sky-high. If you give out what amounts to free money to 18 year olds, then businesses will exist to take it.
Paradoxically, I believe that if student loans were either more expensive or more difficult to acquire, you'd see college costs coming down. The only other way is having the government foot the entire bill, but then we're just putting the burden of over-paying universities on the taxpayer instead of students.
For example: it's not a coincidence that for-profit universities have their tuition set precisely to the maximum pay-out of the GI bill.
-
Oh no, it turns out Biden isn't using American taxpayer money to pay off my loans after all. I'll have to pay them back myself, oh the humanity! Responsibility for my own actions? Gross. I perish the thought.
Slapping a bunch of 18 year olds with huge debt because college is ludicrously expensive is rather gross. I would rather our taxes go to making us better than other places. But I think a more important goal is to make college/universities not so stupidly expensive and then implement debt programs.
Cars and houses are also ludicrously expensive, yet I don't see anyone rushing to pay off mortgages or car loans. I don't see why student loans are so special (aside from being held by such a small part of the US population).
I'd argue that the government's attempts to "fix" college costs with low interest student loans are actually what drove the costs so ludicrously high in the first place. The ability of students to take out massive loans when they have little concept of the value of money is causing universities to get away with overspending. It's much the same reason that the stimulus money given to individuals and businesses drove inflation sky-high. If you give out what amounts to free money to 18 year olds, then businesses will exist to take it.
Paradoxically, I believe that if student loans were either more expensive or more difficult to acquire, you'd see college costs coming down. The only other way is having the government foot the entire bill, but then we're just putting the burden of over-paying universities on the taxpayer instead of students.
For example: it's not a coincidence that for-profit universities have their tuition set precisely to the maximum pay-out of the GI bill.
Its weird how other counties can make education publically funded. It feels like private universities are evil and yould go to the public ones.
-
I'd argue that the government's attempts to "fix" college costs with low interest student loans are actually what drove the costs so ludicrously high in the first place. The ability of students to take out massive loans when they have little concept of the value of money is causing universities to get away with overspending. It's much the same reason that the stimulus money given to individuals and businesses drove inflation sky-high. If you give out what amounts to free money to 18 year olds, then businesses will exist to take it.
Yep, I agree.
Paradoxically, I believe that if student loans were either more expensive or more difficult to acquire, you'd see college costs coming down.
Or we just regulate shit more. Force price caps. Same goes for hospitals that want to charge you $60 for one ibuprofen pill. People will overcharge for as long as they can get away with it.
-
Paradoxically, I believe that if student loans were either more expensive or more difficult to acquire, you'd see college costs coming down.
Or we just regulate shit more. Force price caps. Same goes for hospitals that want to charge you $60 for one ibuprofen pill. People will overcharge for as long as they can get away with it.
As far as I understand it, there has never been a single point in history in which a price cap on something worked out in anyone's favor.
-
As far as I understand it, there has never been a single point in history in which a price cap on something worked out in anyone's favor.
Ok well you can try to have an imagination and maybe agree that things need to be regulated more. Or just say you think things are going great now and we should continue on without trying to improve anything. :)
Also, "Economists do know, however, that price controls can be theoretically beneficial when imposed appropriately on a monopolist or monopsonist, and they do tend to work better in imperfectly competitive markets."
https://www.stlouisfed.org/en/publications/regional-economist/2022/mar/why-price-controls-should-stay-history-books#authorbox
A price cap on insulin, for example, was extremely necessary btw and the government finally realized that.
If universities don't fall into that category then fine. Let's just all continue to spend ~120,000 for a degree or whatever it is now. Young adults definitely deserve to enter into the work force with that level of debt in order to get a job that pays maybe $20 an hour.
-
It was always possible for young people to get an expensive degree in Paleolithic History or whatever passion topic they want to study and then subsequently find that they have a tough time getting a job with it.
I don't see why free handouts are required. Those graduates should just accept that they didn't pursue the degree to make money and did it solely for personal interest. If the goal was to make money, then they already knew what they needed to study, and will simply have to start again. Of course, it probably would have been a lot easier if they had pursued a money-making career first and their passion degree second once they had a good income stream coming in, or did some sort of double major or major/minor, but life is full of learning lessons.
$120K is still a fraction of the cost of a house, and isn't that radical of a debt to carry around in comparison. Even if it can't make you much money, the degree is a designer handbag representing your #1 passion in life. So yes, you should pay for what you purchased. The people advocating debt forgiveness want to something for nothing.
-
It was always possible for young people to get an expensive degree in Paleolithic History or whatever passion topic they want to study and then subsequently find that they have a tough time getting a job with it.
I don't see why free handouts are required. Those graduates should just accept that they didn't pursue the degree to make money and did it solely for personal interest. If the goal was to make money, then they already knew what they needed to study, and will simply have to start again. Of course, it probably would have been a lot easier if they had pursued a money-making career first and their passion degree second once they had a good income stream coming in, but life is full of learning lessons.
All of this is a bullshit empty argument and I know you know it. Maybe one day we can grow beyond the stupid af Republican talking points.
Every job should pay a liveable wage. If it can't afford to do so then it shouldn't be a job. No one here is demanding free handouts (reminder that the student loan forgiveness plan would not have covered the full debt of going to a 4 year university), just reasonably priced education since degrees are almost always required for any entry level position.
Many people can't even afford to buy houses anymore so maybe let's stop making that comparison because I can't see how that helps the argument.
-
Ok well you can try to have an imagination and maybe agree that things need to be regulated more. Or just say you think things are going great now and we should continue on without trying to improve anything. :)
Also, "Economists do know, however, that price controls can be theoretically beneficial when imposed appropriately on a monopolist or monopsonist, and they do tend to work better in imperfectly competitive markets."
https://www.stlouisfed.org/en/publications/regional-economist/2022/mar/why-price-controls-should-stay-history-books#authorbox
A price cap on insulin, for example, was extremely necessary btw and the government finally realized that.
If universities don't fall into that category then fine. Let's just all continue to spend ~120,000 for a degree or whatever it is now. Young adults definitely deserve to enter into the work force with that level of debt in order to get a job that pays maybe $20 an hour.
No, I don't think price capping universities will work, but to that point I don't understand enough about economics to say if they will or won't. Further, if you want serious discussion about solutions to the problem, you'll have to start reading reports from analysts. No one here, including you, is qualified to have a deep and thoughtful discussion about how to "fix" the financial considerations of universities, aside from the general notion that some of us believe it costs "too much".
Further, I would like to make the point that no one is required to get a degree, which is why coincidentally, most people on the planet don't have one. It is purely an optional cost with risks associated with it, just like purchasing anything else. You can make the point that subsidizing education is generally good for the country and economy, but I think this varies by major considerably.
Many people can't even afford to buy houses anymore so maybe let's stop making that comparison because I can't see how that helps the argument.
We're making that comparison because about 40% of Americans have mortgage debt. About 20% have student loan debt. Does it not make more sense to subsidize Americans trying to pay for homes than for education, if your argument is based on affordability?
Fundamentally, if you have a bunch of money to hand out to people, handing it out only to people with student loans should be a low priority. There are plenty of Americans that have greater need of that money than those who took out student loans. If we're worried about people paying off their debts, it should be a broad "pay off your debts" program based on the person's situation at the time. Slinging out free money for specific kinds of debt is not a solution.
-
Further, I would like to make the point that no one is required to get a degree, which is why coincidentally, most people on the planet don't have one.
But more than half of Americans do have one. No one is required to get one but then they end up working low income jobs and you get people like Bishop who might say they don't deserve to have a liveable wage if they didn't want to get a "real job."
We're making that comparison because about 40% of Americans have mortgage debt. About 20% have student loan debt. Does it not make more sense to subsidize Americans trying to pay for homes than for education, if your argument is based on affordability?
But it's not just affordability. I would argue that it's more necessary to get a college degree in this country then it is to buy a home as without a college degree you will likely not earn enough to ever be able to afford a home anyway.
Also, more than half of American households have two incomes so generally the burden is shared at least. And there is definitely a difference between starting your adult life in debt and choosing to go into debt because you decided you can buy a home later in your adult life.
And if you say again that you can choose to not get a degree, you are technically correct but I'd refer you back to my first point: No one is required to get one but then they end up working low income jobs and you get people like Bishop who might say they don't deserve to have a liveable wage if they didn't want to get a "real job." So damned if you do and damned if you don't.
If we're worried about people paying off their debts, it should be a broad "pay off your debts" program based on the person's situation at the time. Slinging out free money for specific kinds of debt is not a solution.
Sounds like a good idea to me. Also, why are we "slinging out free money"? You had to qualify for Biden's student loan forgiveness program: You must earn less than $125,000 a year for individuals, or $250,000 for married couples and/or head of households.
Young adults who are debt free contribute more to the economy and would probably be more likely to start a family. But yeah, I'm also all for a general debt forgiveness program. It'd be more of a bandaid then solving any issue but as you pointed out, no one here is qualified or capable of fixing the situation. Shit just sucks.
-
These people signed the loans as adults and must face the consequences of their decisions. If you are going to spend $120K on anything you had better have a good plan on getting the money back, and should have done the research to see what was possible on the return on investment for what you want to do.
It is also possible to make poor business decisions and acquire a lot of business debt. When your business fails the fault falls with you and no one else. You should have done a better job with research, product development, and advertising that is suitable for the current market. These students made the equivalent of a bad business decision and in many cases signed loans that can't be cleared with bankruptcy.
It's one thing if a freak accident caused you to acquire hospital debt that was not your fault, but this was all their fault from the start. You should be responsible for your poor decisions.
-
These people signed the loans as adults and must face the consequences of their decisions. If you are going to spend $120K on anything you had better have a good plan on getting the money back, and should have done the research to see what was possible on the return on investment for what you want to do.
It is also possible to make poor business decisions and acquire a lot of business debt. When your business fails the fault falls with you and no one else. You should have done a better job with research, product development, and advertising that is suitable for the current market. These students made the equivalent of a bad business decision and in many cases signed loans that can't be cleared with bankruptcy.
It's one thing if a freak accident caused you to acquire hospital debt that was not your fault, but this was all their fault from the start. You should be responsible for your poor decisions.
You're right, buddy. Expensive degrees required for low paying jobs is the fault of the students. America is working great, we're definitely not taking advantage of the masses to line pockets. 👍
-
Let's face it: the problem is capitalism, full stop. We gave it a go, and it's obliterated the middle and working classes, while making some people so rich they could never spend their fortunes in twenty lifetimes. It's time to seriously overhaul the system.
-
Oddly, if you had asked many of these people as they were studying about the financial fortunes their degree would bring, they would have told you that they knew full well that they would be living in poverty. They weren't even tricked or fooled. They wanted to do this. They didn't do it for money, and would have done things differently if the goal was money.
They specifically and knowingly made a choice to live in poverty for the rest of their lives, so why should anyone stand in the way of that?
If you wave your money wand and make a field like teaching a profitable field to go into then it would be overrun with corporate charter schools and third world teachers, flooded by corps and foreginers, like an educational version of IT industry and suddenly become uncool. In such an overrun industry with plentiful education and plentiful teachers young adults would surely then instead be going into environmental cleanup or some alternative where they feel they can contribute the most to society, still choosing poverty over profit.
It is a psychological problem, most of all. Running a store or going into business is helping a community in many ways, but is uncool and untrendy among young liberal adults because it is mainstream profitable.
-
Let's face it: the problem is capitalism, full stop. We gave it a go, and it's obliterated the middle and working classes, while making some people so rich they could never spend their fortunes in twenty lifetimes. It's time to seriously overhaul the system.
Pinning the blame on a non-existent system is not very helpful, but par for the course based on your post history.
Carry on, my wayward son. There'll be peace when you are done.
-
Oddly, if you had asked many of these people as they were studying about the financial fortunes their degree would bring, they would have told you that they knew full well that they would be living in poverty. They weren't even tricked or fooled. They wanted to do this. They didn't do it for money, and would have done things differently if the goal was money.
They specifically and knowingly made a choice to live in poverty for the rest of their lives, so why should anyone stand in the way of that?
If you wave your money wand and make a field like teaching a profitable field to go into then it would be overrun with corporate charter schools and third world teachers, flooded by corps and foreginers, like an educational version of IT industry and suddenly become uncool. In such an overrun industry with plentiful education and plentiful teachers young adults would surely then instead be going into environmental cleanup or some alternative where they feel they can contribute the most to society, still choosing poverty over profit.
It is a psychological problem, most of all. Running a store or going into business is helping a community in many ways, but is uncool and untrendy among young liberal adults because it is mainstream profitable.
Remind us again, Tom... Which field did you go into?
-
But more than half of Americans do have one. No one is required to get one but then they end up working low income jobs and you get people like Bishop who might say they don't deserve to have a liveable wage if they didn't want to get a "real job."
The idea that no degree automatically means "low income job" is simply not true. There is some mild correlation with having a degree and making more money, but as I said before, this greatly depends on the degree. You also have high income degrees like medical doctors causing the average to skew over degrees that typically don't result in any improved career prospects.
But it's not just affordability. I would argue that it's more necessary to get a college degree in this country then it is to buy a home as without a college degree you will likely not earn enough to ever be able to afford a home anyway.
Also, more than half of American households have two incomes so generally the burden is shared at least. And there is definitely a difference between starting your adult life in debt and choosing to go into debt because you decided you can buy a home later in your adult life.
And if you say again that you can choose to not get a degree, you are technically correct but I'd refer you back to my first point: No one is required to get one but then they end up working low income jobs and you get people like Bishop who might say they don't deserve to have a liveable wage if they didn't want to get a "real job." So damned if you do and damned if you don't.
As I said before, if it is a debt problem, then it should be equally shared among debts. There's nothing special about education debt. If anything, we are too haphazard about demanding young adults go up to their eyeballs in debt to get a degree that they have a very good chance of not even using for their career. The meme of college being necessary to make more money or have a better life is simply not true. Higher education is not a trade school, we have for too long conflated "got my degree" with "skill certification for better job".
Sounds like a good idea to me. Also, why are we "slinging out free money"? You had to qualify for Biden's student loan forgiveness program: You must earn less than $125,000 a year for individuals, or $250,000 for married couples and/or head of households.
For some definition of "qualifying". At "must make less than $125k per year as an individual or less than 250k as a married household" you're "qualifying" 95% of the country. We've already discussed what it means to give out free money to the wealthy.
Young adults who are debt free contribute more to the economy and would probably be more likely to start a family. But yeah, I'm also all for a general debt forgiveness program. It'd be more of a bandaid then solving any issue but as you pointed out, no one here is qualified or capable of fixing the situation. Shit just sucks.
I personally believe that just paying off debts, no matter what kind of debt, is treating the symptoms and not the disease. It's a form of kicking the can down the road. It's useful as part of a wider solution, but I have as of yet seen zero politicians propose debt forgiveness as part of a wider solution. Instead, they use it as a carrot on a stick to bring out the young voters. Those voters who time and time again prove to be an easily scammed and limitlessly naive bunch because they are always 18-22 years old.
-
Here's the thing about degrees that I've learned first hand:
Even if you want a job outside of your degree, having one helps alot.
It shows your employer that you can finish something and many higher level jobs require A 2 year degree. Not always officially, but more like "I can't hire someone who doesn't have a bachelors degree in something."
If we're going to go the proper route, I'd propose that community colleges and state schools operate like public schools except you, the student, must pay for any books and supplies. Otherwise the schools and staff are tax payer paid.
Still might incurr debt, but it'll be much lower.
-
(UK Perspective)
My parents generation didn't really go to University, as a rule. It was only for special careers or really exceptional individuals.
My generation it was generally the brighter kids which went, but it wasn't exceptional.
Now it's almost become "the thing to do" after school.
And the big difference is I went to Uni before student loans were a thing.
If I went now I'd be coming out £30k in debt before I'd really started out in life. I'd think a lot harder about going now - although probably still would as I pretty much had to for the career I wanted to go in to.
I don't have a problem with the concept of student loans, it's good for the country and economy to have well trained people in the workforce, but it's obviously a personal advantage too in terms of career opportunities and salary. So the principle of having to pay something for that doesn't seem wrong to me. It's just the level of it. Saddling kids with that level of debt before they've really got going as an adult and then them coming out into a housing market where certainly in the cities it's basically impossible to get a foothold on the housing ladder. It doesn't feel right to me.
-
If anything, we are too haphazard about demanding young adults go up to their eyeballs in debt to get a degree that they have a very good chance of not even using for their career. The meme of college being necessary to make more money or have a better life is simply not true. Higher education is not a trade school, we have for too long conflated "got my degree" with "skill certification for better job".
It's not impossible to get a good job without some kind of degree but it will be a struggle to find something unless you're lucky. But I agree, we shouldn't be demanding it. The practice of weeding out applicants by requiring they have some kind of bachelor's degree even though it's not at all relevant to the job should stop.
I personally believe that just paying off debts, no matter what kind of debt, is treating the symptoms and not the disease. It's a form of kicking the can down the road. It's useful as part of a wider solution, but I have as of yet seen zero politicians propose debt forgiveness as part of a wider solution.
Yee
If we're going to go the proper route, I'd propose that community colleges and state schools operate like public schools except you, the student, must pay for any books and supplies. Otherwise the schools and staff are tax payer paid.
Still might incurr debt, but it'll be much lower.
Yes, I like this.
So the principle of having to pay something for that doesn't seem wrong to me. It's just the level of it. Saddling kids with that level of debt before they've really got going as an adult and then them coming out into a housing market where certainly in the cities it's basically impossible to get a foothold on the housing ladder. It doesn't feel right to me.
This exactly.
I never argued for higher education to be free. Biden's forgiveness plan only would have given back 10k so even he wasn't going to cover the full debts. But a system where most jobs want you to have some kind of degree even if it isn't relevant, then not paying well, and saddling kids with over 100k of debt with interest is fucking predatory and gross as shit.
The forgiveness plan shouldn't be all we're looking at. These issues need to be resolved at the root. But rich people were bailed out during covid and I never saw anyone throw a hissy fit and try to stop that from happening. But if it's for regular struggling people? Fuck them kids I guess.
-
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/28/us-medical-schools-that-dont-charge-tuition.html
TLDR: Rich old woman gives $1 Billion dollars to a medical school. The medical school is now tuition free for the foreseeable future.
So apparently it takes $1 Billion dollars to make a medical school free for all for a very long time. (I won't say forever because forever is a long time). Makes you wonder how long it would take to make every medical school in the country tuition free if the US used most of its defense budget on that.
Oh... 1 year.
https://medicalaid.org/how-many-medical-schools-in-us-the-definitive-guide-2023/#:~:text=How%20Many%20Medical%20Schools%20in%20the%20US%3F,existing%20schools%20expand%20their%20programs.
192 medical schools in America.
The defense budget is $842 billion in 2024.
So cutting down by $192 billion and giving to every medical student's tuition would basically end tuition for med students for the forseeable future.
Go figure! Wonder why they don't do that?
-
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/28/us-medical-schools-that-dont-charge-tuition.html
TLDR: Rich old woman gives $1 Billion dollars to a medical school. The medical school is now tuition free for the foreseeable future.
So apparently it takes $1 Billion dollars to make a medical school free for all for a very long time. (I won't say forever because forever is a long time). Makes you wonder how long it would take to make every medical school in the country tuition free if the US used most of its defense budget on that.
Oh... 1 year.
https://medicalaid.org/how-many-medical-schools-in-us-the-definitive-guide-2023/#:~:text=How%20Many%20Medical%20Schools%20in%20the%20US%3F,existing%20schools%20expand%20their%20programs.
192 medical schools in America.
The defense budget is $842 billion in 2024.
So cutting down by $192 billion and giving to every medical student's tuition would basically end tuition for med students for the forseeable future.
Go figure! Wonder why they don't do that?
Two major problems:
1. Paying tuition for students doesn't solve the fundamental problem of over-indulgent universities charging too much.
2. The defense budget is driving Pax Americana
The results of your budget plan:
1. Universities become even more greedy since Uncle Sam is paying the bills (they already do this with the GI Bill, suspiciously, most universities have semester hour rates that match the GI Bill maximum payout exactly).
2. Significantly more conflicts break out across the planet and global trade is degraded.
-
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/28/us-medical-schools-that-dont-charge-tuition.html
TLDR: Rich old woman gives $1 Billion dollars to a medical school. The medical school is now tuition free for the foreseeable future.
So apparently it takes $1 Billion dollars to make a medical school free for all for a very long time. (I won't say forever because forever is a long time). Makes you wonder how long it would take to make every medical school in the country tuition free if the US used most of its defense budget on that.
Oh... 1 year.
https://medicalaid.org/how-many-medical-schools-in-us-the-definitive-guide-2023/#:~:text=How%20Many%20Medical%20Schools%20in%20the%20US%3F,existing%20schools%20expand%20their%20programs.
192 medical schools in America.
The defense budget is $842 billion in 2024.
So cutting down by $192 billion and giving to every medical student's tuition would basically end tuition for med students for the forseeable future.
Go figure! Wonder why they don't do that?
Two major problems:
1. Paying tuition for students doesn't solve the fundamental problem of over-indulgent universities charging too much.
2. The defense budget is driving Pax Americana
The results of your budget plan:
1. Universities become even more greedy since Uncle Sam is paying the bills (they already do this with the GI Bill, suspiciously, most universities have semester hour rates that match the GI Bill maximum payout exactly).
2. Significantly more conflicts break out across the planet and global trade is degraded.
1. This is not a "send us the bill" this is a "we give you $1 billion dollars and you stop charging tuition." Thus they can't overcharge for anything.
2. $192 billion is like 20% of the budget. And realistically, just divide it up by a few years. No one's going to realistically notice.
-
1. This is not a "send us the bill" this is a "we give you $1 billion dollars and you stop charging tuition." Thus they can't overcharge for anything.
That's very nice, Dave. If only we had a Dave lawmaker to look down upon people and say "no, you can't take advantage of this" and they just frown at you in response and say "okay."
2. $192 billion is like 20% of the budget. And realistically, just divide it up by a few years. No one's going to realistically notice.
...what. To put this into perspective, taking away 192 billion of the defense budget is the same as deleting the entire US Army branch (their 2024 budget is $185.3 billion). I think other countries would notice.