I mean, seriously. I was stupid enough to take on the burden of student loans. At least give me the dignity of having the responsibility of paying them off.
-
Because your student loans can not be discharged in bankruptcy, you have personally assumed all of the risk, as such your interest rate should be zero.
-
Therefore the most fair and equitable solution is to retroactively set the interest rate to zero, and refund all interest payments to the borrowers.
What say you?
I wouldn’t even mind the interest, if 100% of the interest was used to fund future student loans for the next wave of students. Banks don’t want to give out loans they won’t make money from? Make it a requirement to qualify for any future bailouts. We’re due for another in a couple of years
Interest rates represent the opportunity cost of investing that money elsewhere, of which lending risk is only one component. Also, the point is moot because lenders can still lose money if borrowers default, even if borrowers cannot legally discharge the debt in bankruptcy, so the lender does hold risk.
Isn’t that the argument.
There’s an unspoken agreement between a country and its youth.
The youth works hard and takes on debt at a pivotal moment losing years of work opportunity to specialize in something that will contribute to the economy.
In return the country is to provide a stable economy to find work so these people can repay that debt over time.
Question is when the country fails their end, the student still owes and is behind in experience. This debt can ruin them for decades. So should the government help repay to compensate for shitting the bed
The right answer is to remove or strictly limit tuition for public schools, as many countries do and as the US has in its own recent history.
During much of the 1960s (in the early years of the Master Plan for Higher Education in California, 1960-1975), the three public higher education systems in California – the University of California System (UC), the California State College System (CSUC), and the state’s community colleges – did not charge tuition for in-state residents. Yes, students paid some nominal (called “incidental”) fees. But tuition, we as think about it and know it today, was not an essential part of the financing plan for public higher education in California five decades ago.
The transition to student fees (a rose by any other name?) in the UC and CSUC systems began shortly after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as governor of California in 1967. As reported by the NY Times in 1982, Gov. Reagan “fought hard in the Legislature to impose tuition at four-year colleges.” He lost the battle for tuition, but the California Legislature “agreed to increase student registration fees, which [previously] had been nominal.” The official “no tuition” policy in California’s community colleges ended in 1982.
Gotta say, “college tuition” was not on my “things Reagan ruined” bingo card.
How? How do you foster this economy? Through what means?
Cutting taxes, removing frivolous programs, making it easier to start a business, making it easier to run a business, removing unnecessary restrictions to spur innovation, reducing the military budget…there are a lot of ways.
We could remove the burden of employers to provide health insurance by providing single payer health care.
Yes, tax cuts have always led to much higher worker pay…
Are you crazy? That type of trickle-down nonsense has been thoroughly debunked.
You know what would make it easier to start and run businesses? Not having your most educated populace be heavily in debt. Building social safety nets so that starting a business isn’t as risky. Making it so healthcare isn’t tied to employment… you know what maybe taxes on the extremely well established businesses should be increased to pay for that.
What unnecessary restrictions are currently hampering innovation in your opinion?
No, no, no!
Forcing the people with the most up to date expert knowledge to “work for the man” during their prime risk-taking years (before having family responsabilities) because they’re force to due to debt, rather than being free to take risks as inventors or entrepreneurs, is a well known way of “promoting innovation”!!!
/s (just in case).
Cutting taxes doesn’t trickle down. Making it cheaper and easier to run a business doesn’t either. Removing “frivolous programs” has tanked the economy.
If you want to see what caused the end goals you speak of it was the new deal. Massive public investment paid by high taxes on high earners.
I think student loan write-off is putting money in the hands of young, educated, mostly single people, which is aimed at spurring innovation by allowing people to take risks at the start of their careers. So it’s not all of the things you’ve listed, but it’s one of the things. It’s similar to cutting taxes in effect.
Totally agree. For the last few decades we’ve been gleefully giving the government money hoping it’ll trickle down to the economy. I guess we are getting a bit of a trickle. More like a tinkle. Like when you get up to pee but your bladder ain’t as full as you thought it was.
Millions of dollars that are going to banks every month instead of the local economy doesn’t spur vibrant small business.
