EPTStudent Loan Forgiveness Act - Page 28
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
YuTz
United States119 Posts
| ||
|
Flyingdutchman
Netherlands858 Posts
On April 19 2012 08:16 YuTz wrote: All in All.... this bill would be bad for any economy... especially one like we have now. Lets just forgive people for making bad decisions... and for those who make good decisions... lets make them pay for those who don't make good decisions. I dont buy it. Or you could maybe think a little further down the line. If this debt problem really is this big and it gets a lot of exposure it might lead to less and less american youth's consider pursuing higher education. You want to see how fast your country will crumble when you stop innovating due to lack of talented people being educated? Honestly, these kind of measures are a lot better for an economy in the long run compared to half of the current government expeditures. | ||
|
FuGGu
United States176 Posts
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash. We pay significantly more than our parents ever had to....you're trolling right? kids trolling. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On April 19 2012 08:12 1Eris1 wrote: I mean for mortgages/car loans/etc. These guys have already flopped hard on one loan, and the government bailed them out. How many will have learned their lessons? Probably not a lot. They'd be prime targets for big companies to make money off. edit: yeah ^^, misworded that. I meant they would get higher interest rates and most of them would take them anyways because they hadn't learned anybetter. There's no guarantee it would happen again, and it would also result in a massive backlash and loss of PR for the banks if it happened twice. Not to mention that a lot of people for the company get fired in the process. Don't get me wrong, achieving a "too big to fail" status completely shits on what normal economic theory states. On April 19 2012 08:21 Flyingdutchman wrote: Or you could maybe think a little further down the line. If this debt problem really is this big and it gets a lot of exposure it might lead to less and less american youth's consider pursuing higher education. You want to see how fast your country will crumble when you stop innovating due to lack of talented people being educated? Honestly, these kind of measures are a lot better for an economy in the long run compared to half of the current government expeditures. I'm pretty sure the biggest argument in here is that degrees aren't worth it, there's too much unneeded demand for them,a nd we need less people getting them... | ||
|
airtown
United States410 Posts
-go to a too-expensive school, -go into a low paying field or one that they don't need a degree for, -get a loan without reading the papers or without being prepared for the interest rate, -start a family when they have negative net worth, -or spend too much on goods and services that people around the world making $2 a day can get by without. Note here that almost every single poor household (and the bill doesn't even apply to just the poor) owns a TV, the vast majority have VCRs or DVD players, and a significant majority of them have cable or satellite programming, as of 2004 (so these statistics have probably increased). Source: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america This bill will encourage more people to go into college when they don't need it, go into colleges that financially don't fit with their career aspirations, and given that people often respond to incentives, perhaps even work less hard (knowing that their hard work will not be needed to pay back their student loan). Most importantly, it will increase our debt, compared what would be possible if we just reduced the spending on Afghanistan without implementing student loan forgiveness. In this statement in the bill, the author strongly implies that a formal post-secondary education is needed to earn a "living wage": "Because of soaring tuition costs, students often have no choice but to amass significant debt to obtain an education that is widely considered a prerequisite for earning a living wage." I would like to see an example of an American who did not go to college, acted rationally in their life choices, but ended up unable to manage to earn a "living wage". Are there examples of this at all? If so, is this a widespread outcome? | ||
|
YuTz
United States119 Posts
| ||
|
zobz
Canada2175 Posts
On April 19 2012 08:21 Flyingdutchman wrote: Or you could maybe think a little further down the line. If this debt problem really is this big and it gets a lot of exposure it might lead to less and less american youth's consider pursuing higher education. You want to see how fast your country will crumble when you stop innovating due to lack of talented people being educated? Honestly, these kind of measures are a lot better for an economy in the long run compared to half of the current government expeditures. Less people should go for higher education, when they can't afford it, especially education in fields that bring little return on the investment. It's not the business of every citizen to pay taxes towards debt relief for irresponsible morons, or to help encourage other morons who misunderstood the debt crisis and think it's a bad time to study business even when their savings already have it covered. Of course even if it was everyone's responsibility, that still would not justify forcing their hand. Otherwise is the essential philosophy behind facism. If government corruption is essentially causing higher education to be more expensive than it should be, then for god's sake petition to eliminate that corruption. You don't even address that problem if all you do is redistribute wealth to pay those educators exactly what they're artifically empowered to ask for. | ||
|
Skelephile
United States64 Posts
| ||
|
Talack
Canada2742 Posts
On April 19 2012 08:25 FuGGu wrote: We pay significantly more than our parents ever had to....you're trolling right? kids trolling. Truth, my dad paid maybe 4000 in total for his 4 year engineering degree. Mom paid like 500 dollars for her dental assistants degree. I'm looking at around 35,000 or more for my accounting degree >< Edit: My dad is still always amazed at how much it costs for me to goto school when he got his for almost free. | ||
|
cskalias.pbe
United States293 Posts
On April 18 2012 09:23 dAPhREAk wrote: when you say loan forgiveness, what you really mean is let the government pay for it, which means increase the debt or increase taxes. i am opposed to increasing the debt, and i am opposed to increasing taxes to pay off something that people voluntarily and privately incurred. I agree with you here. You cannot guarantee low interest rates if you're also going to "forgive" debt without negative externalities. Eventually, lenders realize that no one actually wants to pay their loans because they can get forgiven. Some people will pay, but an inordinate amount will not. Lenders therefore lose money. Fewer and fewer lenders exist in this money losing market of giving loans to students who dont have to pay them back, and now the only lender left is the government or no one at all Now if the government is dealing these money losing student loans, that lost money just becomes another government expense that they have to pay with taxes. Maybe people WANT this to happen. The wealthy will pay disproportionately for these losses since the poor are the ones that are likely to need the student loan and not pay it back in the first place. But then you have to have real questions about whether we want to create a society where contracts MEAN something, as opposed to your promising to pay someone back at a non-usurious rate yet deciding not to pay anyway. I think this undermines the incentives that make capitalism effective. That said, it doesn't mean that there can't be improvements. I would like to see something that incentivizes students to go into science/engineering/medicine like better interest rates on their student loans with the government putting in the difference between the lower rate and the market rate. Yes, that would be paid with taxes though. | ||
|
-_-Quails
Australia796 Posts
On April 19 2012 08:21 Flyingdutchman wrote: Or you could maybe think a little further down the line. If this debt problem really is this big and it gets a lot of exposure it might lead to less and less american youth's consider pursuing higher education. You want to see how fast your country will crumble when you stop innovating due to lack of talented people being educated? Honestly, these kind of measures are a lot better for an economy in the long run compared to half of the current government expeditures. There's already a problem with too few American students opting for a high enough level of education to meet demand in many fields. It's why there are so many jobs that have to be filled by skilled immigrants. When I lived in Palo Alto, I would have been surprised if there were more than 2 kids in my class with US-born parents. Edit: Screw the wealthy people who don't want to contribute to a better society. Just because you don't have to see the bad in your gated communities and nice little rich-only areas doesn't mean you aren't judged on their standard of living. Screw the tax-dodgers who cheat their country out of billions of dollars each year that could go to making the USA a truly first-world country again, and push for legislation to make it legal. Tax isn't theft, it's a fee that you pay to live in a country where you are insured to have a basic standard of living, to use its services including highways, to be protected from criminals and from corporations who happily poison the rivers if they are allowed and it's cheaper than waste disposal. Screw the liars on the major news networks in the USA, who use their propaganda to make people believe that benefit fraud costs more than tax fraud, or that socialised medicine is disliked by the majority in countries where it is in place. The USA at its best is a wonderful place to live, work, and innovate. I want to see it flourish. It can't do that unless its people flourish, from the weakest members on up. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
People should only pay for college if they need it for their future career. Forgiving debt dilutes that decision. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On April 19 2012 08:25 FuGGu wrote: We pay significantly more than our parents ever had to....you're trolling right? kids trolling. you take out higher loans and you will pay more, sure, that's how the world works. kid? yep, that's me. just a tiny little youngin... edit: my father finished law school with ~$65,000 in student loans. the job he got with the DA afterwards started at ~$20,000, the job now starts at ~$60,000. say you go through law school with ~$200,000 of debt, you would be paying about the same amount compared to your income that my parents did. | ||
|
-_-Quails
Australia796 Posts
On April 19 2012 09:56 ticklishmusic wrote: I disagree. Since the beginning of high school, I've been investing, saving and playing the stock market to save up money. I also worked hard in high school to get into a good school with scholarship. I hope to graduate more or less debt free. Med school, well, that's another issue. Either way, I'm working hard for this ish yo. People should only pay for college if they need it for their future career. Forgiving debt dilutes that decision. Congratulations on having an opportunity few are afforded and taking advantage of it. Your reward for this under the new scheme would be to not give up 10% of your income for 10 years. | ||
|
TunaBarrett
Sweden1045 Posts
I pay like 50$ a month on my loans, which will take me fucking forever to pay off, but the interest is only at like 1.5% and theres no limit to how long it can take me to repay it. | ||
|
yandere991
Australia394 Posts
Working part time jobs to pay your bills back then may of been doable but trying doing that shit now when wages of a part time job did not increase at the 800% of student fees. Back then it was fucking easy to get a job provided you didn't fuck up you're degree epic-ally. My mum got a job in Deloitte with one interview and other interviews at Ernst & Young and KPMG with a decent credit average and no job experience. Now we have fucking 2 round interviews with prescreening psychometric testing and a group assessment centre before you find out if you got the job (and this isn't even a graduate job its for an internship ffs). And it isn't enough that you just did well in you're degree you also need crazy extra curricular. My friend got rejected for a JPMorgan internship despite having a HD WAM whilst being a project coordinator in one club and a finance director in another, she was picked over a person (after the 6th round of interviews) who had a prior internship at Deutsche Bank. Basically you needed RELEVANT work experience for an internship. Yeah times haven't changed, we simply haven't worked hard enough -rollseyes- I sympathize with American students and their absurd student loans and I'm extremely thankful of the HECs system in Australia. I have no qualms about paying for another person's education if it would help lift the intelligence of the general population even by a margin. Considering how retarded a majority of the populace is, it wouldn't hurt that people who have the same voting rights as me would be a tiny bit more informed and less retarded when helping making decision on the future of the nation. | ||
|
airtown
United States410 Posts
On April 19 2012 09:37 -_-Quails wrote:Edit: Screw the wealthy people who don't want to contribute to a better society. Just because you don't have to see the bad in your gated communities and nice little rich-only areas doesn't mean you aren't judged on their standard of living. Screw the tax-dodgers who cheat their country out of billions of dollars each year that could go to making the USA a truly first-world country again, and push for legislation to make it legal. Tax isn't theft, it's a fee that you pay to live in a country where you are insured to have a basic standard of living, to use its services including highways, to be protected from criminals and from corporations who happily poison the rivers if they are allowed and it's cheaper than waste disposal. Screw the liars on the major news networks in the USA, who use their propaganda to make people believe that benefit fraud costs more than tax fraud, or that socialised medicine is disliked by the majority in countries where it is in place. The USA at its best is a wonderful place to live, work, and innovate. I want to see it flourish. It can't do that unless its people flourish, from the weakest members on up. I personally would have fewer qualms with taxing and spending if the United States stopped taxing income that went to charity. Right now you can only donate 50% of your income to public charities and 30% to private ones and have it be tax deductible. I know that few people give away more than that much, but I still find it wrong that someone interested in doing as much good as they possibly can would be forced to give a significant portion of their income to an inefficient bureaucracy that spends money on such things as $120,000 cancer drugs that only extend life expectancy by 3.5 months (or college graduates who live in one of the world's richest countries, for that matter), rather than on charities that can save a life (not just extend it for a couple of months) for like $400 by treating tuberculosis. | ||
|
Klyberess
Sweden345 Posts
On April 18 2012 11:22 BuGzlToOnl wrote: You exaggerating way too much. I would say about 25-30 years of working you'll pay off your loans. Assuming your 22 when your graduated college with a BA. You'll be 47 at the earliest. Assuming you applied yourself to at least one job and got promoted over the past 25-30 years you'll definitively pay off your loans a lot faster. It's doable. Not the way you'll want to do it, but doable none the less. This is the most depressing thing I've read today. | ||
|
Avtonikov
United States85 Posts
On April 19 2012 10:05 sc2superfan101 wrote: you take out higher loans and you will pay more, sure, that's how the world works. kid? yep, that's me. just a tiny little youngin... edit: my father finished law school with ~$65,000 in student loans. the job he got with the DA afterwards started at ~$20,000, the job now starts at ~$60,000. say you go through law school with ~$200,000 of debt, you would be paying about the same amount compared to your income that my parents did. You have a reasonable point, I'll give you that. But it's still much easier to say when you're not about to not be able to go to college because your family can't afford to pay or take the loans, and likely destined for failure, or at least being stuck in your situation, in a system that demands a college degree for most every job. Oh wait, I suppose I didn't try hard enough. | ||
|
NEOtheONE
United States2233 Posts
Ryan Budget Whacks Pell Grants, Makes Federal Student Loans More Expensive Rep. Paul Ryan's proposed federal budget would cut $200 million from the program, and potentially eliminate help for more than 1 million students. Currently the maximum Pell grant award is $5,645, which only covers about a third of the cost of attending college. Ryan's budget would cut Pell grant eligibility for students who attend classes on less than halftime. His budget would also make it so college students with federal student loans would have to start paying interest on their loans while still in school. A 2007 law that kept federally subsidized Stafford loan interest rates low will expire this summer, meaning the rates would double from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. Students have already gone to Capitol Hill to protest and most Democrats are in favor of keeping the interest rates low. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) proposed a bill that would get rid of the expiration date on the discounted student loan rate. However, Republicans argue it would cost the federal government $5.7 billion, which they say is way too much. If Congress does not act, the interest rates for federal student loans would increase on June 30, 2012. Republicans passed a bill out of committee that would repeal minimum standards for a credit hour and removes the need for a state to authorize higher education institutions in their state. Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) contends this would allow greater flexibility for schools, Democrats counter that it opens the door for fraud. The federal definition of a credit hour is the basic unit underlying the distribution of federal student aid. Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) wrote on Inside Higher Ed that the bill represents a threat to the government's ability to police institutional fraud in the higher education industry. In regards to eliminating the requirement for state authorization for colleges, Bishop said "the bill would make it impossible for states to guarantee the quality of programs operating inside their borders." Thanks to the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act in 2005, virtually no student loans can be discharged in bankruptcy. So in practical terms, if you have $200,000 in debt for credit cards, car payments, or mortgage payments from a private bank, they can all be wiped away in bankruptcy. However, student loans from the same private lender cannot. The argument is that you can take away someone's car when they file bankruptcy, but you cannot take away their education. The Senate heard testimony on March 20 about whether or not this should be changed. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is leading the charge for bankruptcy reform that would allow students to get rid of their student loan debt when and if they file bankruptcy. Congressional Republicans recently sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office urging them to investigate the federal student loan program and whether they are "appropriately managing student debt." The federal government has turned to private debt collectors to collect money owed for student loans, while $67 billion of student loans are now in default, according to Businessweek. Those contractors out there trying to get students and graduates to pay up are paid on commission. The GOP letter said they were concerned borrowers who have defaulted are not getting adequate assistance to get back on track repaying their loans. | ||
| ||
