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

(+) Yeah! (+)

Balrog0 posted...

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.

The reason I take the opposite approach is what I see as the inevitable run on effects by the people who support the policies in the first place. People who push for social welfare programs aren't generally comfortable with letting people starve, thus things like SNAP. "If you can't afford food, here's a token for one food". Abuses and loopholes notwithstanding, this approach ensures that people who can't afford food have access to food, so now you know people are fed. If you replace that with a flat payment, presumably most people will still just buy food, but those that don't you now need to be able to look them in the eyes and go "well I guess you're going to starve, then."

My fear is that social programs turn to UBI which turns to UBI PLUS social programs, because when the free money runs out, people are still going to want support.
---

A simpler and more reasonable "solution" would just be to set a 0% interest rate for all outstanding and future Federal Direct Loans, and kill off the bankruptcy exception.

s0nicfan posted...

If you replace that with a flat payment, presumably most people will still just buy food, but those that don't you now need to be able to look them in the eyes and go "well I guess you're going to starve, then."

Is that a realistic concern, though? Aren't there people begging on the street for food right now? You imagine that would go up if we gave people more money?

s0nicfan posted...

My fear is that social programs turn to UBI which turns to UBI PLUS social programs, because when the free money runs out, people are still going to want support.

well, yeah. most likely what we'll actually get instead of a UBI is an expansion of the EITC and CTC programs.
---

Balrog0 posted...

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?

That's why I called it an excuse. making it for those that really need help would almost certainly exclude anyone hanging on to luxury spending while crying poverty. But most people just want their own loans paid, so there's a balancing act between getting it big enough to impact them, and things getting too expensive to reasonably pass even if it may be more fair overall.
---

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

This is the question that I want answered by politicians, because we all know the real answer is to persuade millennial voters
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

A simpler and more reasonable "solution" would just be to set a 0% interest rate for all outstanding and future Federal Direct Loans, and kill off the bankruptcy exception.

That's exactly what I said, no one noticed. Got to be cheaper and more efficient to kill off the interest, at least for a year or two, then to just simply tax the shit out of everyone and hope it all turns out okay.
---

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.

Pretty much sums it up perfectly.