Just now, Hanaguma said:

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".

Nothing makes me feel better about people using bankruptcy on a regular basis to stop paying loans and bills yet keep themselves rich

20 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

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.  

But what you didn't note was how much the median college graduate earned. That number is $52000 per year. And that's the median. 

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Bankruptcy laws are a government way of facilitating failure to not pay loans and to protect the borrower.. Interestingly enough, in 2005, the Republicans passed a law that made it virtually impossible for student loan recipients to use bankruptcy as a reason not to repay loans.

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. 

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

But what you didn't note was how much the median college graduate earned. That number is $52000 per year. And that's the median. 

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. 

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

The debt isn't eliminated. It's just the repayments are passed on to people who didn't receive the education the loan paid for and didn't agree to take on the debt.

 

A bit like paying off everyone's mortgage and let people who rent foot the bill for it.

 

Like Robin Hood in reverse. Steal from those who didn't receive an education to pay off the debts of lawyers who attended Harvard.

 

Socialism. Biden style.

 

 

But somehow a much larger tax gift to the rich isn't robbing the poor to give to the rich?

27 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

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.  

I read further into that article and I saw this listing the best paying careers for recent graduates.

Computer engineering: $74,000

Chemical engineering: $70,000

Aerospace engineering: $70,000

Electrical engineering: $70,000

Computer science: $70,000

 

Not everyone is cut out to be an engineer. So some people are going to be earning considerably less than $52,000.

2 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

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. 

So, how is it relevant if a college graduate earns $35000 a year that that would be earning more than a high school graduate earning $13000 a year. You don't seem to grasp what "median income" signifies.

A big problem in America that Biden's loan forgiveness is aimed at amelioriating is the fact that the more debt people graduate with, the less likely they are to be entrepreneurial, to take chances. A big reason that social mobility in America has cratered.

10 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

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. 

The usual silly right wing talking point. First off, about 40% of college students in the US attend community college. I doubt there are many offering Lesbian ballet courses. But can you share with us  what percentage of students graduate with a BA in Lesbian ballet or similar pursuits?

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

So, how is it relevant if a college graduate earns $35000 a year that that would be earning more than a high school graduate earning $13000 a year. You don't seem to grasp what "median income" signifies.

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. 

2 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

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. 

And you don't seem to understand that society as a whole might benefit if these loans were forgiven.

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The usual silly right wing talking point. First off, about 40% of college students in the US attend community college. I doubt there are many offering Lesbian ballet courses. But can you share with us  what percentage of students graduate with a BA in Lesbian ballet or similar pursuits?

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?

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And you don't seem to understand that society as a whole might benefit if these loans were forgiven.

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.

2 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

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?

First it was lesbian ballet, now its baristas. Just another dumb right wing talking point. You have any numbers to back up your barista allegations?

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

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.

And yet it's the word that's used. And as has been repeatedly pointed out, there are all sorts of government expenditures that go to segments of society but not society as a whole. Why does this one draw so much outrage from an angry minority?

8 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

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.

And not everybody is excited that their states use their tax dollars to subsidize universities. Or, for that matter, that people with no children have to pay taxes to support public schools.

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And yet it's the word that's used. And as has been repeatedly pointed out, there are all sorts of government expenditures that go to segments of society but not society as a whole. Why does this one draw so much outrage from an angry minority?

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.

6 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

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.

No compulsion to go to university. I guess you could choose to be poor for the rest of your life. As has been pointed out, the program mostly targets people on the lower end of the college graduate spectrum. This loan forgiveness should help give them a boost up. Which benefits all society. And there are plenty of programs that subisidize people such as farmers or those who live in flood plains. I don't see anything close to the same level of the indignation about them that I see here. Hmm...maybe it's because of the people who are proportionately overrepresented as recipients of loan forgiveness? 

13 minutes ago, placeholder said:

No compulsion to go to university. I guess you could choose to be poor for the rest of your life. As has been pointed out, the program mostly targets people on the lower end of the college graduate spectrum. This loan forgiveness should help give them a boost up. Which benefits all society. And there are plenty of programs that subisidize people such as farmers or those who live in flood plains. I don't see anything close to the same level of the indignation about them that I see here. Hmm...maybe it's because of the people who are proportionately overrepresented as recipients of loan forgiveness? 

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. 

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

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. 

Students attending vocational/trade schools can obtain federally-guaranteed loans and are subject to the same debt relief as those attending college or university.   

 

Do you have a link to the Wharton source?

On 8/26/2022 at 12:02 PM, candide said:

The middle-class will be the main beneficiary. It may explain why GOP politicians are so angry, as it is a key electoral target for them.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/goldman-sachs-has-run-the-numbers-on-student-loan-relief-heres-their-assessment-11661417918?siteid=yhoof2

 

4 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

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. 

Middle income households will benefit the most. (See above)

8 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

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. 

You do understand averages, don’t you.

….

I thought it was the hyper rich who are paying all the taxes?

7 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

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 also says that’s the average.

 

An average which includes those Ivy school grads, many starting on very high salaries and therefore screwing the average.

 

You can’t make the case by using averages while ignoring granulated data already already presented.

 

 

7 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

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. 

I’m sure you could construct an argument without relying on fallacious rightwing tropes.

 

Nobody is studying’Lesbian Ballet’:

 

https://bestaccreditedcolleges.org/articles/careers-and-education/can-you-get-a-degree-in-lesbian-dance-theory.html

7 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

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?

Once again, unsubstantiated nonsense.

 

You don’t have the data, but you make the assertion.

 

 

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

No compulsion to go to university. I guess you could choose to be poor for the rest of your life. As has been pointed out, the program mostly targets people on the lower end of the college graduate spectrum. This loan forgiveness should help give them a boost up. Which benefits all society. And there are plenty of programs that subisidize people such as farmers or those who live in flood plains. I don't see anything close to the same level of the indignation about them that I see here. Hmm...maybe it's because of the people who are proportionately overrepresented as recipients of loan forgiveness? 

I'm curious, what kind of money would you consider to be average income for non college grads? And what money is average for a college educated person? Don't give me a graph, just your opinion.

 

College isn't for everyone. You kind of know when the kid is 15 or so whether or not they're college material. In my opinion the money would be better spent setting up programs in High School where they could learn a trade. An on OTJ training program.

 

I know guys making 150K - 250K yr without a degree. The maritime industry is one area that is screaming for people.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It also says that’s the average.

 

An average which includes those Ivy school grads, many starting on very high salaries and therefore screwing the average.

 

You can’t make the case by using averages while ignoring granulated data already already presented.

 

 

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

3 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

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

Well for one it will put more money into the economy and not the banks. At the end of paying my daughters loan for 10 uears, I ended up paying twice what was taken out. 

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

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. 

https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2022/8/23/forgiving-student-loans

That is false

Here is the relevant table from the Wharton report:

https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2022/8/23/forgiving-student-loans

 

As you can see, from column "Forgive 10K with 125K income cap"  there is a very small share of forgiveness for those in the 90-95% bracket, and virtually none at all for those above that.

 

In addition these tables do not include the further 10K forgiveness for those who were recipients of Pell Grants. That would skew the results further towards those who earn less.

 

You also don't take account of the fact that the less one earns, the greater the burden of repayment. So even if the average amounts of the relief is are less, the loans impose a greater burden on the borrower.

1 hour ago, ThailandRyan said:

Well for one it will put more money into the economy and not the banks. At the end of paying my daughters loan for 10 uears, I ended up paying twice what was taken out. 

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.