Hanaguma

That is a good point. Frankly, aptitude testing should be a must for most, if not all, degree programmes. A lot can also be learned at the community college/vocational level. There is no need to pile up 100,000 plus in debt to study English Lit. or History.

Never said that. But the chance that they are under large debt burdens, caused by their personal decisions, are much lower. You take out a loan for a service and use the service, you pay it back. Especially if your family income is six figures plus. This is the part I truly don't understand- how is it possible to justify people with household incomes over 200 grand getting debt "relief".

NO, the government already lent the money. Now they have to take money to fill that hole. And yes the recipients have extra income, but at the expense of the people who paid to fill the hole. Classic income redistribution in an upwards direction.

If I came across as criticizing, my apologies. Not my intention. Just genuinely curious about the situation. So your daughter will be a doctor, congratulations are in order! Are you really paying the interest rate you mentioned? That is shocking. I thought federal loan interest was lower than that.

Exactly. If there is one thing the world needs less of, it is "communications" degree holders. Or perhaps "visual arts" majors. Oh, and lawyers. And of course the aforementioned Interpretive Dance people.

Like I said before, the gap is about $22,000 per year, and $800,000 over a lifetime. This is easily discovered by myriad studies. Government interference in loans has had a great deal to do with the increased cost of university in the first place. So I could see a very limited plan to help the very desperate, if it were paired with reform to the loan system- basically government getting out of the loan business. It is proven that if you subsidize something, it gets more expensive.

Yeah, I said that already. The uber rich will not be the main beneficiaries. Yet as you see, neither will the poor. Only 11% of the benefits to the bottom 20% of income earners. I have yet to hear any argument that people in the top 60% of earners, whose annual income tops $80,000, are deserving of this bonus. The only obvious answer is that this is a vote buying scheme. If you want to help people in financial trouble, there is no reason to limit that help to those with student loans only. Unless of course you are courting them as possible voters...

How does this put more money into the economy? The government takes $300 billion from people, gives it to other people, where does "more money" come from? Of course it does add $300 billion to the debt. I think I could possibly find a better use for spending $300 billion than this. Did your daughter benefit financially from her education? Looking back, did the easy availability of government loans influence your decisions? I am genuinely curious.

The "granulated data" shows that Americans in the lowest fifth of income will only see 11-12% of the benefit for this program. That number steadily increases through the quintiles until the very top quintile. Those people have the means to pay back their loans quickly. 70% of the money will go to people making more than 82k per year. Wharton numbers, not mine. So tell me again how this helps poor and working class Americans. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2022/8/23/forgiving-student-loans

You are presenting a false binary- the choices aren't "university" or "poverty". Many options exist for those who want to further their education without running up huge debts- community college, in state university, living at home, working to save before entering uni, trade school.... these are prudent things to do which are de-incentivized by cancelling student loans. As for who benefits? Wharton School says that 70% of the money will go to the top 60% of earners. Less than 12% will go to people in the lowest quintile of earners. So as a way to help those truly in need, it is a bust.

Because a lot of government programmes are designed to help people who, through no fault of their own, are in bad circumstances. That does not apply here. There was no compulsion to go to university and pile up debt. It was a choice freely made. Plus this one will inevitably help those who are already well off, relatively speaking. It is a hard sell to convince people that college grads, who everyone admits make more money than non-grads, deserve a handout.

The word "forgiven" is so emotionally charged, and inaccurate. The better term would be "paid for by taxpayers" or "added to the national debt". Everybody loves to forgive and be forgiven, but not everybody is excited to pay their neighbors' debts which the neighbor freely undertook.

Cool. And how much debt do those 40% of students owe, compared to their peers who go to universities for programmes that prepare them for life as baristas?

Oh ,I do. But YOU don't seem to grasp what a "loan" signifies. A person chooses of their own free will to borrow money. They pay it back. It really isn't a difficult concept.

Yes, and your point is what exactly? They are still 22 grand ABOVE non graduates. Twenty two large can pay off a lot of debt. Let's say that a person graduated with $100,000 in loans. That would be paid off by the time they are 30 using the extra income they derived from their education. Then, all profit. until they die.

I agree. Student loans are far too easy to get. If bankruptcy was a possibility, far less money would be given out for people studying useless degrees with no prospects. Financial institutions need some skin in the game too. But this is one of the big reasons why education became so expensive- it was/is too easy to take out huge loans to pay for it. If a young person wants to study Lesbian Ballet, and doesn't have the money to pay for their degree, let them go to a bank and make the case to the loan officer for borrowing the cash.

Nah, you are just letting the Bad Orange Man keep up his rent-free status in your head. Heaving the old "but Trump....." around is getting a bit old, don't you think? And if it would make you feel better, I would say , "yes, even Trump".

Off topic and completely irrelevant. Unless you can tie the two subjects together...

I agree. People who declare bankruptcy should not recieve loan payoffs from the federal government.

The article I quoted said that the gap in earnings is $22,000 per year for people in their TWENTIES. That is a difference of more than $100,000 in their early career years.

It is really pretty simple. You took out a loan. You used the service for which you took out the loan. Now, pay it back. That is kinda how life works.

Your article says the average student loan debt is about $30,000. Yet this article says that the average college grad earns $22,000 per year MORE than a high school grad. In total, $800,000 over a lifetime. https://money.com/wage-gap-college-high-school-grads/ So, why can't the person with a $30,000 debt pay it off with their extra $22,000 a year? The numbers just don't add up. Makes a person wonder what the actual motivation is for the scheme. Democrats tend to disdain non-college educated voters, so it makes sense to take from them and give to those that Democrats favour- the so-called elite who have college degrees.

This is gonna cost $300 BILLION, according to the Wharton Business School. If the government has that much cash to throw at education, how about spending it a bit more wisely? For example, means tested scholarships for students who want to learn trades (electrician, plumber, carpenter etc). Scholarships for STEM fields. But loan repayments for people who majored in Womyn's Victimization Studies or Botswanian Tapestry Weaving? Give me a break. But I guess we know the answer. Those kinds of programmes won 't buy votes for the Democrats in the mid terms.

Then why not lower the income threshold to an actual working class level? Say $50,000 per family. But there is no argument that Harvard grads making 6 figures need debt relief more than truckers or service workers.

In what universe does the phrase 'ordinary working Americans' mean households with an annual income of a quarter million dollars?