Elections Warren makes bold claim to begin canceling student loan debt on day 1

[HomeCheese]

I recognize the personal element there, @Zankou's argument included a similar reference, and since my parents paid for my schooling, I've certainly lived that side of the conversation.

But I don't think that's sufficient to justify the impact of what is out of control student loan debt. You make reference to partially subsidized universities and JCs but that funding has been dramatically decreased over the years. And it's a decrease on a per capita basis, not just an absolute dollar basis. It is part of the reason that public school costs have increased. Over the decades we've gradually shifted more and more of the funding away from the states and the fed into the private loan market.

I don't know when your kids went to school but, whenever it was, the state picked up more of the cost for their education than it does for kids graduating nowadays. It could reasonably be suggested that you had to make less of a sacrifice for your kids education than parents today. And that your daughters benefited from the increased public funding levels of yesteryear compared to the children of today and tomorrow.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-lost-decade-in-higher-education-funding

Students today are being asked to self-finance more of their education than students a decade ago, regardless of where they choose to go. And they're forced to finance that increased burden with more debt. Hence when we, graduates and/or parents or yesteryear, compare our experiences to the modern student, we're not making an apples to oranges comparison. The government paid more of our education bill up front via funding, making our loan responsibilities smaller.

When I first attended public university in California my tuition was $129.00 a quarter for full time, all you can eat. It was like $400 a year. That same school now cost about $8,500 a year. A similar quality private school would be more like 40k a year now a days I think. Tax payers are already subsidizing the $8,500 school, that's why it's so cheep. We should not have to pay for the kids that makes the choice to go to a fancy private school.

My kids are currently attending public schools in California, UC schools so I am more than familiar with current costs. Certainly Cali stands out and has the best higher education system in the world. It's also a great example of where someone could get a cost effective education, a great education. My kids didn't go the JC route but it is very reasonable.

In Cali you can get a two year JC degree for next to nothing then transfer to a UC school. You wind up with a degree from Berkeley, Davis, UCLA or one of the other schools for less than 40k.

 

[panamaican]

When I first attended public university in California my tuition was $129.00 a quarter for full time, all you can eat. It was like $400 a year. That same school now cost about $8,500 a year. A similar quality private school would be more like 40k a year now a days I think. Tax payers are already subsidizing the $8,500 school, that's why it's so cheep. We should not have to pay for the kids that makes the choice to go to a fancy private school.

My kids are currently attending public schools in California, UC schools so I am more than familiar with current costs. Certainly Cali stands out and has the best higher education system in the world. It's also a great example of where someone could get a cost effective education, a great education. My kids didn't go the JC route but it is very reasonable.

In Cali you can get a two year JC degree for next to nothing then transfer to a UC school. You wind up with a degree from Berkeley, Davis, UCLA or one of the other schools for less than 40k.

I can't argue with your specific experiences but I can disagree on the national level.

And that's not including the cuts that preceded it. Tuition costs have increased, public funding has decreased. The current generation of students are looking at far more expensive college costs than the previous generation.

Then you factor in that attendees of private colleges have better graduation rates, better employment prospects, and better rates of pay upon graduation. Public college is getting more expensive yet it doesn't yield better statistical results than private college.

That's a compelling argument for a student to seriously consider the added cost of private university over public. I'm not sure that it's always the better financial decision to buy the cheaper product if it's going to cost you more in the long run.

 

[HomeCheese]

I can't argue with your specific experiences but I can disagree on the national level.

And that's not including the cuts that preceded it. Tuition costs have increased, public funding has decreased. The current generation of students are looking at far more expensive college costs than the previous generation.

Then you factor in that attendees of private colleges have better graduation rates, better employment prospects, and better rates of pay upon graduation. Public college is getting more expensive yet it doesn't yield better statistical results than private college.

That's a compelling argument for a student to seriously consider the added cost of private university over public. I'm not sure that it's always the better financial decision to buy the cheaper product if it's going to cost you more in the long run.

Well I absolutely agree that tuition for public schools has increased a ton and students are picking up more of a share. I'm good with lowering the cost for students and increasing the government subsidy. The cost of the public university I attended is more than 21 times more expensive than when I went there.

I won't argue with your stats about making more coming out of a private school. I would say that if that is the case then they should be in better position to pay off their loan. It's a personal choice to go to a private school and in my opinion it is a luxury. A big luxury and one I don't believe should be financed by tax payers.

 

[ElKarlo]

It doesn't address it because it's a different problem. 2 different problems. Why would the solution for one problem solve a different problem?

Student debt is a problem for the current students post-graduation. Addressing the future cost of college doesn't address current student debt post-graduation. It might affect future debt but does nothing about current debt. 2 different problems - they require 2 different solutions.

Because if you can limit ir stop people from having the debt in the first place, you can then do something about debt forgiveness. Otherwise you'll be forever tackling the same problem. I'm saying stop the eater from flooding before you wetvac the basement.

 

[panamaican]

Because if you can limit ir stop people from having the debt in the first place, you can then do something about debt forgiveness. Otherwise you'll be forever tackling the same problem. I'm saying stop the eater from flooding before you wetvac the basement.

Sure...for future students.

But what about the students who have already graduated?

 

[deltapapha]

she lies about past, present and future actions

 

[panamaican]

Well I absolutely agree that tuition for public schools has increased a ton and students are picking up more of a share. I'm good with lowering the cost for students and increasing the government subsidy. The cost of the public university I attended is more than 21 times more expensive than when I went there.

I won't argue with your stats about making more coming out of a private school. I would say that if that is the case then they should be in better position to pay off their loan. It's a personal choice to go to a private school and in my opinion it is a luxury. A big luxury and one I don't believe should be financed by tax payers.

Except that it's already financed by tax payers in a variety of ways, public and private schools alike. Some of it is more indirect than others but we're already financing the cost of private universities at the tax payer level.

Among elite private universities, like Harvard and Yale, the average taxpayer subsidy is $13,000 per student per year, while the annual subsidy at the most selective public universities, like the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and the University of California, Los Angeles is more than $23,000 per student annually.
https://blogs.mprnews.org/oncampus/2011/05/how-much-does-each-college-degree-cost-taxpayers/

In 2003, taxpayers covered 16.4% of the private college costs, this includes direct money and tax breaks. And of course, we're subsidizing the student loans to begin with. We've been financing private colleges this whole time, just at a lower rate than the public schools. But in some cases, the value of the subsidies can range into the high 5 figures per degree. This isn't a complete wash, we tend to make it back in terms of increased tax revenue over the lifetime of the graduate.

Taxpayers benefit from the higher income taxes paid on the higher salaries earned by college graduates, ranging from $50,000 in additional taxes paid over the work life of a graduate from a less selective not-for-profit institution to almost $150,000 in additional income taxes paid over the work life of a graduate from the most selective not-for-profits.

But that potential tax revenue is being poorly allocated, if students are spending that money servicing debt instead of more beneficial economic activity.

 

[Islam Imamate]

What "it" are you talking about? People chose to take out large loans to go to expensive universities. That's an investment. The payoff is getting an education that stands out to prospective employers flipping through stacks of resumes. These people made a high risk, high reward investment. Other people (like me) chose to go to cheap public universities because we didn't want to graduate tens of thousands of dollars in debt. We chose a lower risk, lower reward investment. The people who took out loans to go to BU, NYU, etc will have a more lucrative education line on their resumes for the rest of their lives than those of us who chose to get our degrees from cheap public universities, so they should bear the cost of their investment.

Regarding government backed mortgages, people who get FHA loans end up paying more in interest and they have to pay for mortgage insurance. In addition, there are government restrictions on what homes they can buy. People who file for bankruptcy (as I already stated) are not treated as favorably as people with prudent spending history by financial institutions and certain employers. So with government backed mortgages and bankruptcy, it's not like the government is eliminating advantages held by people who have spent prudently and people who have gotten traditional mortgages.

Regarding grants, the government should only issue grants to businesses performing a vital function that would not be feasible without a government grant. Going to an expensive university so that one can have a resume that stands out against his or her competition to people making hiring decisions doesn't fall in that ballpark.

Being a student (or former student) doesn't make them "worse." It's not that going to an expensive university makes someone a bad person. The problem is making an investment to have better job prospects than people who want the same kinds of jobs, and then wanting the government to give them a clean slate when it comes to their liabilities (their debt) but not their assets (their educations).

I think that's a fair point and so keeping that in mind would you prefer a more modest student loan forgiveness program? Let's say only $10k is forgiven, that $10k will almost certainly make up a far larger proportion of the total debt that the student who attended a cheaper public school has when compared to the student who attended a more expensive private school.

Or are you against student loan forgiveness in general?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

I think that's a fair point and so keeping that in mind would you prefer a more modest student loan forgiveness program? Let's say only $10k is forgiven, that $10k will almost certainly make up a far larger proportion of the total debt that the student who attended a cheaper public school has when compared to the student who attended a more expensive private school.

Or are you against student loan forgiveness in general?

No, they shouldn't get a dime cancelled.

 

[HomeCheese]

Except that it's already financed by tax payers in a variety of ways, public and private schools alike. Some of it is more indirect than others but we're already financing the cost of private universities at the tax payer level.



In 2003, taxpayers covered 16.4% of the private college costs, this includes direct money and tax breaks. And of course, we're subsidizing the student loans to begin with. We've been financing private colleges this whole time, just at a lower rate than the public schools. But in some cases, the value of the subsidies can range into the high 5 figures per degree. This isn't a complete wash, we tend to make it back in terms of increased tax revenue over the lifetime of the graduate.



But that potential tax revenue is being poorly allocated, if students are spending that money servicing debt instead of more beneficial economic activity.

I am all for the tax money going to programs that benefit the public. I guess where we differ is that there are plenty of other things I would do with the tax money before I would pay off people's student loan debt. Why not take the money for this and use it to improve infrastructure? Or perhaps towards sustainable energy?

I just don't see why the country would throw so much money at college educated people whale the poorly educated get nothing.

So, if this was really going to happen how about I quit working and go back to school and get an art degree? I'll borrow the money because uncle Sam will cover it. After i'm done I'll go back to my old job. To me the tax payers should not have to pay for this.

 

[panamaican]

I am all for the tax money going to programs that benefit the public. I guess where we differ is that there are plenty of other things I would do with the tax money before I would pay off people's student loan debt. Why not take the money for this and use it to improve infrastructure? Or perhaps towards sustainable energy?

I just don't see why the country would throw so much money at college educated people whale the poorly educated get nothing.

So, if this was really going to happen how about I quit working and go back to school and get an art degree? I'll borrow the money because uncle Sam will cover it. After i'm done I'll go back to my old job. To me the tax payers should not have to pay for this.

I mean you could do it but it would be a really bad financial decision since you would be giving up 4 years of your earnings life to get that art degree. If you don't need the money then I can see that being an approach. But if you have years of savings, I doubt that you would get the federal financial aid that these loans are there to cover. So, you'd probably be getting purely private debt and the federal government couldn't cancel it.

But this does go back to my earlier point about anti-education being targeted to things that people don't like. Let's take the art degree for example - graphic artist is a job where an art degree has some value. Artistic painters obviously benefit from a more structured education in their craft. Animators, gallery staff, photographer, etc. All art related industries where an art based education is beneficial.

As for infrastructure, sustainable energy, student debt. They're all the same. It's federal money meant to let some private sector person or business benefit on a personal level. I don't think students are any more or less worthy than anyone else to get a suck on the government teat. If we're going to hand out the money, it's better that it's spent on people who will actually benefit from a better start to their life over giving more federal money to established corporate entities.

 

[HomeCheese]

I mean you could do it but it would be a really bad financial decision since you would be giving up 4 years of your earnings life to get that art degree. If you don't need the money then I can see that being an approach. But if you have years of savings, I doubt that you would get the federal financial aid that these loans are there to cover. So, you'd probably be getting purely private debt and the federal government couldn't cancel it.

But this does go back to my earlier point about anti-education being targeted to things that people don't like. Let's take the art degree for example - graphic artist is a job where an art degree has some value. Artistic painters obviously benefit from a more structured education in their craft. Animators, gallery staff, photographer, etc. All art related industries where an art based education is beneficial.

As for infrastructure, sustainable energy, student debt. They're all the same. It's federal money meant to let some private sector person or business benefit on a personal level. I don't think students are any more or less worthy than anyone else to get a suck on the government teat. If we're going to hand out the money, it's better that it's spent on people who will actually benefit from a better start to their life over giving more federal money to established corporate entities.

I am not sure that is true. You can take out student loans for living expenses I'm pretty sure. I could maintain my lifestyle, get an art degree and chase coeds for two years. F-Yeah. I mention an art degree because I really like art and looking back might have gone that route. I did get an art history minor.

I disagree about infrastructure being the same as student debt. They are worthy project but some help everybody and some only help folks with college degrees.

 

[ElKarlo]

Sure...for future students.

But what about the students who have already graduated?

Nothing until the cost of college is audited. After that is fixed you can go to step two. Perhaps the students can get their tuition costs reduced even after they graduated. If they overpaid, they should get a refund.
College is dumb and overpriced imho. It's a very inefficient way of spreading knowledge. We need to question it's continued existence imho. Much better ways of dissemination exist

 

[VivaRevolution]

Shinigami for president

 

[BassAckwards]

cancelling student loan debt will just reward bad behavior and encourage colleges to keep raising tuition/fees for tax payers to pay.

if you want free college, then put in some effort and join the military for the GI bill.

 

[MilesAbove]

cancelling student loan debt will just reward bad behavior and encourage colleges to keep raising tuition/fees for tax payers to pay.

This is incorrect, as they will raise it anyway. The economy will be bolstered by everyone having capital to spend..... which they will.

if you want free college, then put in some effort and join the military for the GI bill.

This is a valid option, and has nothing to do with removing debt.

 

[Happy Man]

Forget student debt. They chose it. They can pay for it.


Be a real hero, forgive everyone’s medical debt. They didn’t chose to get a rare cancer

 

[Islam Imamate]

Tbh even as someone with student loan debt this is not really a policy priority for me. The argument about fairness is really petty and I don't put much stock into it. But some of the other critiques of this kind of policy seem to make sense to me. For one its mainly relief for a class of people that are disproportionately privileged so I think the argument that other policies that target more marginalized and vulnerable groups like anti-poverty programs should be prioritized makes sense. Second I think the idea that there are unintended consequences from something like this like the effect it might have on the student loan industry or potentially counter-productive behaviors it might incentivize is something to consider.

That said I am not adamantly against student debt relief, obviously as someone with debt it'd be nice to have it canceled so I am open to being convinced of the merit of the idea.

Partly it’s because people who sacrificed for so long to keep debt low and then worked hard to pay it off—like myself—are bitter at other people getting a free windfall. Particularly when so many people have been spending like crazy. Take Stacy Abrams as an example ... she racked up huge debts through irresponsibility.

But at the end of the day, do I care that much about ensuring fairness to me? I’d rather see the system fixed. I think about all the sacrifices I made to go through school. Do I think it should be so difficult financially for everyone? No, I think it was terrible for me, and I don’t think it would be a good thing if other people had to deal with that level of crushing financial discipline. I’d be much happier if nobody has to go through abysmal poverty as a student. Even if it’s not fair relative to what I had to go through.

Reminds me of this post that made the rounds a while ago

Lots of posters in the latter category ITT.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Forget student debt. They chose it. They can pay for it.


Be a real hero, forgive everyone’s medical debt. They didn’t chose to get a rare cancer

Definitely like that idea more than student loan forgiveness. Haven't thought it through deeply either way to be fair but on a gut level that seems like a more worthwhile priority.

 

[BassAckwards]

This is incorrect, as they will raise it anyway. The economy will be bolstered by everyone having capital to spend..... which they will.

2/3rds of america doesnt have a degree. so why should everyone pay for the entitled/privileged? nobody forced them to go to college; it was their choice to go into debt, so tax payers shouldnt be on the hook for their financial ineptness and bad choice of degree. if antything, the colleges/universities should be the ones to fork out the bill since it's their fault for the lousy return on investment.