Current Events > why shouldn't we reimburse people who already paid off their student loans?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Is it just because it would be more regressive, in that more higher income people would get a larger share of the benefits in terms of dollars?

Or is there something else to it?
---

Balrog0 posted...

Is it just because it would be more regressive, in that more higher income people would get a larger share of the benefits in terms of dollars?

Or is there something else to it?

Presumably because it would one: drastically increase the cost of such a proposal, and two: force somebody to to make the unpopular decision of how far back we go before we stop paying out.

Personally, I'm not sure that blanket loan forgiveness in any form is an effective policy. I don't suspect we'll get anything more nuanced than that though during the election cycle.
---

I agree, the universities should start giving the money back that they took from students by massively inflating educational costs.

If you somehow mean the reimbursement should be tax payer funded, then LOL.
---

Lol
Poor dudes who took years to pay off loan

Born in wrong year I guess
---

s0nicfan posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Is it just because it would be more regressive, in that more higher income people would get a larger share of the benefits in terms of dollars?

Or is there something else to it?

Presumably because it would one: drastically increase the cost of such a proposal, and two: force somebody to to make the unpopular decision of how far back we go before we stop paying out.

Personally, I'm not sure that blanket loan forgiveness in any form is an effective policy. I don't suspect we'll get anything more nuanced than that though during the election cycle.

I mean more from the perspective of people who support the policy than from the people proposing it. I have seen a lot talk and memes about how people who bring this up are basically crabs, 'oh so since you didnt benefit from [something] no one ever should? grow up" kind of talk from people who want to forgive student loan debt. But why is that the reaction?

The Admiral posted...

I agree, the universities should start giving the money back that they took from students by massively inflating educational costs.

If you somehow mean the reimbursement should be tax payer funded, then LOL.

if you're just going to troll my topic, please go away
---

I already had a plan on paying off all my debt by myself. I'll be peeved if this happens after I do it.
---

Time to make Universities give back.

Balrog0 posted...

if you're just going to troll my topic, please go away

It's funny that you think expecting the universities that have multi-billion dollar endowments to help fix a problem they artificially created is trolling.
---

The Admiral posted...

Balrog0 posted...

if you're just going to troll my topic, please go away

It's funny that you think expecting the universities that have multi-billion dollar endowments to help fix a problem they artificially created is trolling.

You never managed to engage with the serious literature I posted on the issue in the other topic about this, so you are obviously arguing in bad faith like usual. Enjoy the ignore list, it's way past time.
---

for the three people who actually care about learning and making arguments based on fact rather than reflexive ideology and identitarian concerns, check this out: https://www.mercatus.org/publications/healthcare/why-are-prices-so-damn-high

and now back to the topic
---

Balrog0 posted...

You never managed to engage with the serious literature I posted on the issue in the other topic about this, so you are obviously arguing in bad faith like usual. Enjoy the ignore list, it's way past time.

No clue what you're even talking about, but I won't be losing any sleep.
---

my boss is about 42, paid off all of his loans and law school loans and is flabbergasted by this whole proposal and the fact that he'd basically just be patted on the back for doing a good job, no bailout or recompense
---

The Trent posted...

my boss is about 42, paid off all of his loans and law school loans and is flabbergasted by this whole proposal and the fact that he'd basically just be patted on the back for doing a good job, no bailout or recompense

would he be more likely to support a proposal that offered him reimbursement, or does he use this to say no one should be forgiven their student loan debt?
---

I wouldn't be against people being reimbursed, but I guess if I had an option of it passing without reimbursement, or it not passing with reimbursement, I'd choose the former.

In general though, I'd still like more details on what will be done for college prices in general
---

Balrog0 posted...

The Trent posted...

my boss is about 42, paid off all of his loans and law school loans and is flabbergasted by this whole proposal and the fact that he'd basically just be patted on the back for doing a good job, no bailout or recompense

would he be more likely to support a proposal that offered him reimbursement, or does he use this to say no one should be forgiven their student loan debt?

the latter, most definitely
---

emblem boy posted...

I wouldn't be against people being reimbursed, but I guess if I had an option of it passing without reimbursement, or it not passing with reimbursement, I'd choose the former.

But why?
---

Balrog0 posted...

I mean more from the perspective of people who support the policy than from the people proposing it. I have seen a lot talk and memes about how people who bring this up are basically crabs, 'oh so since you didnt benefit from [something] no one ever should? grow up" kind of talk from people who want to forgive student loan debt. But why is that the reaction?

If I had to guess, I'd think a lot of people support policy concepts but intuitively know why they wouldn't work in some cases. People "support" student loan forgiveness but I think they know it'd be absurdly expensive, so anyone else trying to get access to it risks killing the idea entirely. Sort of like how sometimes you know when you don't like something, but it's much harder to say what you'd like instead? Or, going off that second point and perhaps the most likely reason, people in general balk at the idea that when something is offered to a group, that someone else says "where's my piece?"
---

Im cautiously optimistic about the proposal without feeling strongly about it, but I agree that saying fuck everyone who already paid it off isnt the best way of doing things. Especially since people had to hold off on buying a home or investing because they were putting that money towards their loans. They just lost money and it sucks, but I dont have a solution here.
---

Cancelling all student debt seems like a bad idea. Some people will get a legitimate burden off their backs, people who didn't even try to repay their debt will benefit, people who recently repaid their debt will get screwed, people who won the birth lottery will pay nothing without even having to try, all for the price of $1.6 trillion. But this doesn't address the problem at all, and people will just rack up more student debt.

I would agree with letting people get rid of student debt through bankruptcy, but they need to address the actual problem and not just throw money around.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Cancelling all student debt seems like a bad idea. Some people will get a legitimate burden off their backs, people who didn't even try to repay their debt will benefit, people who recently repaid their debt will get screwed, people who won the birth lottery will pay nothing without even having to try, all for the price of $1.6 trillion. But this doesn't address the problem at all, and people will just rack up more student debt.

I mean, this is kind of the elephant in the room. The $1.6 trillion (which Bernie said will take 20 years to collect from his new "Wall Street taxes"), only covers the current, outstanding debt. So what about all the future debt? Are we just agreeing to a never-ending system where the tax payers are now subsidizing private universities that can charge literally any price they want for tuition?
---

can the gov't pay off my mortgage or my credit card bills, too?

What's the difference, exactly?
---

If taxes go up for this, it is kinda like double dipping the people who paid off their loans.

1. They paid off their own loans

2. Now they help pay off the loans of others
---

Balrog0 posted...

emblem boy posted...

I wouldn't be against people being reimbursed, but I guess if I had an option of it passing without reimbursement, or it not passing with reimbursement, I'd choose the former.

But why?

Why what? If I supported paying off the student loans(I'm still iffy on how I feel about it), I'd be for whichever plan has a better chance of passing.

I generally don't like having that as my reasoning, since it seems so...fake, but ya.

But assuming both methods could pass... I guess I do feel a bit like it's regressive. I've paid mine off, and while it'd be nice to get some free cash, I also feel like I don't need it. But I guess I can't speak for everyone
---

Caution998 posted...

can the gov't pay off my mortgage or my credit card bills, too?

What's the difference, exactly?

we already underwrite your mortgage loan(s) but I actually think credit card debt forgiveness would be way more progressive than student loan debt forgiveness. I say that without actually looking though lol
---

It doesn't even make sense to forgive student loan debt. College graduates, on average, make more money than non College graduates.

I thought the Democrats were about the poor?
---

No way, there's actually an inherent reason behind canceling student debt (importance/necessity of education). There is no equivalent reason to cancel credit card debt.
---

Caution998 posted...

It doesn't even make sense to forgive student loan debt. College graduates, on average, make more money than non College graduates.

I thought the Democrats were about the poor?

that is why I am asking the question that I am asking, why can you people not stop trolling for a second? or just leave

Damn_Underscore posted...

No way, there's actually an inherent reason behind canceling student debt (importance/necessity of education). There is no equivalent reason to cancel credit card debt.

I'm not saying it would be a better policy, I am saying if what you care about is helping the poor, forgiving credit card debt probably helps more poor people
---

Can't we just eliminate the interest? Wouldn't that be easier to do then forgiving it all? Like for every 5 years you carry the debt you get 1 year of 0 interest on your loan or something like that?
---

Balrog what do you think would make the most sense to do?
---

I'm fine with those people being reimbursed.
---

Balrog0 posted...

that is why I am asking the question that I am asking, why can you people not stop trolling for a second? or just leave

I mean, you could stop feeding them if you know they're just trolling.
---

Honestly, reimbursing isn't even enough. There's a lot of opportunity cost involved with paying off loans. Like, if I knew I would get them cleared, I'd have just gone to the most expensive Ivy League I can find and network with the rich people. But like...I was realistic and ended up paying off my loans in less than five years so...

No reason to reward the financially illiterate.
---

King_Hellebuyck posted...

Balrog what do you think would make the most sense to do?

So, my general thought on most of these things is that we should just tax wealthier people more and give more of that to people with lower-incomes rather than picking and choosing particular activities to subsidize. Using that framework as a starting point, it's hard to endorse a blanket forgiveness plan for every person with student loan debt. But I'm open to arguments that education is different. I honestly haven't given it enough thought to have a strong opinion.
---

Knowledge_King posted...

Like, if I knew I would get them cleared, I'd have just gone to the most expensive Ivy League I can find and network with the rich people. But like...I was realistic and ended up paying off my loans in less than five years so...

No reason to reward the financially illiterate.

I'm not trying to be an asshole but your decision was a really bad one from a financial standpoint. It would make more sense to go to the better school and make connections there and leverage that into higher lifetime income. Wanting to pay off your debts really fast speaks more to risk avoidance than savvy financial skills imho
---

Caution998 posted...

It doesn't even make sense to forgive student loan debt. College graduates, on average, make more money than non College graduates.

I thought the Democrats were about the poor?

From what i hear, mostly people's concerns are predatory practices. Which were a Target after the 2008 real estate collapse. Why i imagine people want loan forgiveness now versus then is that bankruptcy was a form of loan forgiveness. No such thing exists for student loans. While i think flat out total loan forgiveness isn't fully reasonable, there should be some solution to the garbage college loan and cost system that has been absolutely FUCKING Americans for the past 2 decades.

Note: this post was made without a ton of thought
---

Balrog0 posted...

King_Hellebuyck posted...

Balrog what do you think would make the most sense to do?

So, my general thought on most of these things is that we should just tax wealthier people more and give more of that to people with lower-incomes rather than picking and choosing particular activities to subsidize. Using that framework as a starting point, it's hard to endorse a blanket forgiveness plan for every person with student loan debt. But I'm open to arguments that education is different. I honestly haven't given it enough thought to have a strong opinion.

Thanks for the answer.
---

Balrog0 posted...

I'm not trying to be an asshole but your decision was a really bad one from a financial standpoint. It would make more sense to go to the better school and make connections there and leverage that into higher lifetime income. Wanting to pay off your debts really fast speaks more to risk avoidance than savvy financial skills imho

Not really. If I go to Ivy League and fail to make connections I'm now 400,000 in debt and working a non-six figure job. As opposed to like...the 30,000 I was in and paid off quickly.

If the failure is lifelong debt, you usually don't just go for it.
---

Knowledge_King posted...

Balrog0 posted...

I'm not trying to be an asshole but your decision was a really bad one from a financial standpoint. It would make more sense to go to the better school and make connections there and leverage that into higher lifetime income. Wanting to pay off your debts really fast speaks more to risk avoidance than savvy financial skills imho

Not really. If I go to Ivy League and fail to make connections I'm now 400,000 in debt and working a non-six figure job. As opposed to like...the 30,000 I was in and paid off quickly.

If the failure is lifelong debt, you usually don't just go for it.

I don't know. If you could have gotten into an ivy league, aren't they really generous with tuition help
---

Balrog0 posted...

King_Hellebuyck posted...

Balrog what do you think would make the most sense to do?

So, my general thought on most of these things is that we should just tax wealthier people more and give more of that to people with lower-incomes rather than picking and choosing particular activities to subsidize. Using that framework as a starting point, it's hard to endorse a blanket forgiveness plan for every person with student loan debt. But I'm open to arguments that education is different. I honestly haven't given it enough thought to have a strong opinion.

The problem with "tax the rich" as a solution is that it's a pot you can only dip in to so many times. Nearly all of Warren's proposals, for example, "only" require a few percent added tax on the rich, but that's per-proposal. Add it all up and suddenly you're looking at a MASSIVE hike. It's death by a thousand paper cuts and the hope that nobody notices.

I think that if you're going to start talking this sort of intentional wealth distribution, it needs to be more structured. "Throw more money at the problem" has never been a good answer and many people in poverty have simply never learned how to manage money well. One of the reasons why programs like SNAP have worked is because it's not just a paycheck you can use on anything, and honestly that's one of the biggest problems with UBI as a replacement for welfare programs. It creates a scenario where your safety net needs a safety net.

For example, rather than blanket loan forgiveness, I've argued that we should be offering discounted or free tuition to NEW students in select fields, ones that change every few years based on market demand. If we're really low on electricians, then you can become an electrician for free, but what's offered rotates frequently enough to avoid market saturation. You'll always get the "but my degree is valuable for society in an un-qantifiable way" people, but at some point if you're going to invest in your own people, you need to actually treat it like an investment and make sure there's a ROI. The ROI case has been made for secondary education, but I haven't seen a compelling enough argument that every arbitrary degree has sufficient value to justify letting people pick whatever they want.
---

emblem boy posted...

Knowledge_King posted...

Balrog0 posted...

I'm not trying to be an asshole but your decision was a really bad one from a financial standpoint. It would make more sense to go to the better school and make connections there and leverage that into higher lifetime income. Wanting to pay off your debts really fast speaks more to risk avoidance than savvy financial skills imho

Not really. If I go to Ivy League and fail to make connections I'm now 400,000 in debt and working a non-six figure job. As opposed to like...the 30,000 I was in and paid off quickly.

If the failure is lifelong debt, you usually don't just go for it.

I don't know. If you could have gotten into an ivy league, aren't they really generous with tuition help

Very. If you're in, you got no debt worries

But does this make college free going forward? I'd hate to think I went into the job force out of highschool to avoid debt when I could have gone for free. Because I'd have to think about how Johnny went for free and made bad decisions with only gain while my good decision is really the bad one.
---

It doesn't help solve the problem we're trying to tackle, being the significant economic disadvantages placed on recent college grads.
---

The excuse I was just given was that this is supposed to help the downtrodden, and there isn't much concern for if it's really fair to people that paid off or made sacrifices to not incur the debt others have.

The armchair shrink in me thinks it's an effort to avoid the idea that any of the debt issue is the fault of the borrower (over borrowing to go to an expensive school, taking courses with poor return prospects, poor money management skills in life making keeping the streaming services more important than paying your debt). They want the image of debt forgiveness to be taking back from greedy universities, not a nationwide covering of those that fucked up where others made it through. Not just to make the program a better sell, but to prevent admitting they were the fuck ups in question.

If it were up to me, I'd be for it as a government program you apply for, but you now work for them until your debt is paid at wherever shit job they want you do to (those infrastructure repairs people want have to be done by somebody) . Sadly, indentured servitude got abused and ruined as a concept.
---

s0nicfan posted...

The problem with "tax the rich" as a solution is that it's a pot you can only dip in to so many times. Nearly all of Warren's proposals, for example, "only" require a few percent added tax on the rich, but that's per-proposal. Add it all up and suddenly you're looking at a MASSIVE hike. It's death by a thousand paper cuts and the hope that nobody notices.

This part is untrue. The 2% increase on incomes $50 million and up is enough to eliminate student debt and still have almost a trillion dollars left over
---

s0nicfan posted...

The problem with "tax the rich" as a solution is that it's a pot you can only dip in to so many times. Nearly all of Warren's proposals, for example, "only" require a few percent added tax on the rich, but that's per-proposal. Add it all up and suddenly you're looking at a MASSIVE hike. It's death by a thousand paper cuts and the hope that nobody notices.

I basically agree with Richard Reeves argument in "the Dream Hoarders" that the top 20% of people or so are under-taxed in various ways. I'm not quite as open to something like a national VAT that would be required to really implement a Nordic-style welfare state but I'm closer to that than Warren or Sanders.

s0nicfan posted...

I think that if you're going to start talking this sort of intentional wealth distribution, it needs to be more structured. "Throw more money at the problem" has never been a good answer and many people in poverty have simply never learned how to manage money well. One of the reasons why programs like SNAP have worked is because it's not just a paycheck you can use on anything, and honestly that's one of the biggest problems with UBI as a replacement for welfare programs. It creates a scenario where your safety net needs a safety net.

I take the exact opposite view, actually. I think SNAP looks better than it is on paper precisely because benefits are so easy to sell for cash. I think the financial literacy narrative is mostly a myth. That's not to say that money management isn't important, my objection is more along of the lines that poverty bakes bad decision-making into the process. The stress (and the effects that has on your mental and physical abilities) that is associated with living in poverty creates the conditions for intergenerational poverty, which includes bad money management, but giving people more money would help them make better decisions in the long run.

s0nicfan posted...

For example, rather than blanket loan forgiveness, I've argued that we should be offering discounted or free tuition to NEW students in select fields, ones that change every few years based on market demand. If we're really low on electricians, then you can become an electrician for free, but what's offered rotates frequently enough to avoid market saturation. You'll always get the "but my degree is valuable for society in an un-qantifiable way" people, but at some point if you're going to invest in your own people, you need to actually treat it like an investment and make sure there's a ROI. The ROI case has been made for secondary education, but I haven't seen a compelling enough argument that every arbitrary degree has sufficient value to justify letting people pick whatever they want.

I like this idea, but I think it makes more sense on a local level. Actually I pitched almost this exact idea to my local chamber of commerce. "Customized worker training" is becoming a bigger deal in local economic development schemes because it's kind of a win-win for workers and businesses. Labor markets are local though, so that's why I think it makes more sense to do the subsidizing locally
---

ssk9716757 posted...

The 2% increase on incomes $50 million and up is enough to eliminate student debt and still have almost a trillion dollars left over

that's a wealth tax, not an income tax
---

Balrog0 posted...

ssk9716757 posted...

The 2% increase on incomes $50 million and up is enough to eliminate student debt and still have almost a trillion dollars left over

that's a wealth tax, not an income tax

you're right, my bad
---

Knowledge_King posted...

Balrog0 posted...

I'm not trying to be an asshole but your decision was a really bad one from a financial standpoint. It would make more sense to go to the better school and make connections there and leverage that into higher lifetime income. Wanting to pay off your debts really fast speaks more to risk avoidance than savvy financial skills imho

Not really. If I go to Ivy League and fail to make connections I'm now 400,000 in debt and working a non-six figure job. As opposed to like...the 30,000 I was in and paid off quickly.

If the failure is lifelong debt, you usually don't just go for it.

You're only going to see 400k+ in professional schools like medical and law.

PhD typically gets free tuition + stipend to help subsidize the cost of living. Even expensive private undergrads, if someone took out max cost of living + tuition would be maybe in the 200s, but probably less.

And in cases of the former, medicine is a bit more stable in so far as once you're in medical school, the graduation rate is >90% and post graduate placement in a residency program that makes you a board certified physician is also mid 90%. You'll carry a scary principle (>300k if no help from home and fully funded on loans) but you'll make minimum payments during residency and then pay it off in 3-10 years as an attending physician. Can't comment on law though.

You'd have to colossally fuck up on an epic scale to be in the hole almost half a million from just undergrad debt.
---

I would pay them back in the form of tax deductions and credits. Give them all a $5,000 credit every year they file taxes until they have been reimbursed that way.
---

hollow_shrine posted...

It doesn't help solve the problem we're trying to tackle, being the significant economic disadvantages placed on recent college grads.

1) People who are currently in repayment plans would also theoretically be reimbursed for the payments they made. So doesn't it?

2) Why is that the problem we're trying to solve?

lightwarrior78 posted...

The excuse I was just given was that this is supposed to help the downtrodden, and there isn't much concern for if it's really fair to people that paid off or made sacrifices to not incur the debt others have.

yeah, but if it's to help the downtrodden, targeted loan forgiveness or something else entirely makes more sense than blanket loan forgiveness right?
---

What we need to do is set a date in the past and a threshold, say yesterday and 30%, and charge punitive damages for hiring degree-holdimg candidates for basic/menial jobs if the horing puts them past that threshold and use the date for retroactive charges.

For example, if you have 10 janitors and 5 of them have college degrees, you have 2 counts to pay damages on. If you hire another degree-holding janitor, that's another count.

Because crap like this is how we ended up here.
---