[wat0n]

Court ordered wage garnishment, routine and repeated seizure of any assets, they keep your tax returns, they get your social security checks or any other welfare, and you suffer piss-poor credit for the entirety of your life are all things the US and state governments presently do.

And if they didn't, why would anyone pay their student loans?

Also, piss poor credit is the only thing banks can do without government intervention, which isn't as much of a deterrent as you think it is.

[late]

That is a weird law if that exists.

Lesson #1: Don't sign bad contracts, especially if you're not sure you'll be able to live up to your end.

Lesson #2: Live within your means.

The Bankruptcy Reform Act..

Sh*t happens. Letting that ruin a kids life is the sort of psychopathic abuse Charles Dickens wrote about. Bankruptcy judges and academics opposed it, business loved it. Wanna guess who won?

"They used to be. Before 1976, all education loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy. That year, the bankruptcy code was altered so loans made by the government or a non-profit college or university could not be discharged during the first five years of repayment. They could, however, be discharged if they had been in repayment for five years or if the borrower experienced “undue hardship.” Then, the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984 made it so all private student loans were excepted from discharge too.

Two decades of further tweaks to the bankruptcy code ensued until 2005, when Congress passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which made it so that no student loan — federal or private — could be discharged in bankruptcy unless the borrower can prove repaying the loan would cause “undue hardship,” a condition that is incredibly difficult to demonstrate unless the person has a severe disability."
https://business.time.com/2012/02/09/wh ... ankruptcy/

[Politics_Observer]

@BlutoSays

But wouldn't the taxpayers benefit from a well-educated workforce and see a return on that investment in terms of additional tax revenue being taken in the future due to the fact people are able to be more productive and innovative because they are better educated? Wouldn't a better-educated workforce be beneficial to the economy?

[late]

@BlutoSays

But wouldn't the taxpayers benefit from a well-educated workforce and see a return on that investment in terms of additional tax revenue being taken in the future due to the fact people are able to be more productive and innovative because they are better educated? Wouldn't a better-educated workforce be beneficial to the economy?

That's been the thinking since the 1800s.

[Politics_Observer]

@late

Is it wrong? It is mistaken?

[wat0n]

@late

Is it wrong? It is mistaken?

He's saying that means the government should provide more funding.

I think there's nuance to this idea though. Unlike K-12, higher education is fairly specialized and it's not clear all degrees are the same. I think subsidies make sense for degrees that are desirable but for which grads don't really earn as much as it would be most efficient for them to (i.e., they have large positive externalities) and/or for talented people who want to get well-paying degrees but can't access other sources funding for whatever reason.

[Politics_Observer]

@wat0n

What do you think of making students take out loans for degrees that are highly valued, but then, only offer to repay that student loan only if they successfully graduate with those degrees? That way the taxpayers see a return on investment in that such graduates would pay back taxpayers plus even more given they are making good money in a highly sought-after degree in the taxes that they would pay over their lifetime from their earned income.

This approach would make sense to me. And, if they fail to graduate, they are stuck with paying back the loan themselves. The government could also add a requirement they work in those fields for a certain number of years too before paying off their student loan for them. Do you think, over the long term this would help the U.S. economy? Over the long term, would the taxpayers see a continual return on investment?

[late]

@late

Is it wrong? It is mistaken?

It's the only sane choice.

I did mention Dickens, did I not? Early capitalism had many downsides, the way they handled debt was one of them

[wat0n]

@wat0n

What do you think of making students take out loans for degrees that are highly valued, but then, only offer to repay that student loan only if they successfully graduate with those degrees? That way the taxpayers see a return on investment in that such graduates would pay back taxpayers plus even more given they are making good money in a highly sought-after degree in the taxes that they would pay over their lifetime from their earned income.

This approach would make sense to me. And, if they fail to graduate, they are stuck with paying back the loan themselves. The government could also add a requirement they work in those fields for a certain number of years too before paying off their student loan for them. Do you think, over the long term this would help the U.S. economy? Over the long term, would the taxpayers see a continual return on investment?

So basically, a student would take a private loan and, if she graduates, then the Federal government would offer to refinance it? If not, the student would be stuck with the original loan, at a higher interest rate.

Am I understanding your proposal correctly?

[Politics_Observer]

@wat0n

No, if a student successfully earns a degree in a field that is needed and in demand in the economy, after earning that degree AND working a specific number of years in that field, after working that in that field for a specific number of years the federal government would, in turn, pay off the student loan for that student. The reasoning is that it is because the taxpayers got a return on investment for paying off that loan in that they successfully completed the degree, worked a certain number of years in that field, paid taxes for the pay that comes with that field, and it is likely this specific person will continue working in that field paying a lot of tax money.

It incentives people to pursue degrees that the economy needs and it provides a return on investment to the taxpayer for paying for those college educations given they successfully graduated and worked a specific number of years in that field thereafter. Make sense? In the end, the treasury collects more tax money from taxpayers after deducting paying off those student loans under such specific conditions than they otherwise would collect if the federal government did not offer such a program to those specific students.

Plus, it's possible these same specific people can create good-paying jobs in the economy on top of that in addition to providing a better return on investment in the form of paying more taxes in the long term to the Federal government. But if they don't graduate and they don't work for a specific number of years in that specific field, they do not get their student loans paid off by the Federal government.

[wat0n]

@Politics_Observer I'd do that, but only for low income/disadvantaged students. Rich ones shouldn't get government help, they don't need it.

But there may be degrees that need higher subsidies. Basically those that don't get good market wages but may still contribute to society. Those maybe should receive higher subsidies.

[Puffer Fish]

Why are you bending over and presenting your asshole to big banks that don't care about you?

Do you care about the next generation of students who will want loans?

If these people do not pay the money back, this system is not going to be able to continue.

You're behaving like an immature child. People like you wanted this money and were in favor of this student loan scheme. But now when it comes time to pay the loan back, you complain it's not fair.


If it were up to many conservatives, they would have never allowed the government to guarantee these student loans. The only reason conservatives were convinced to agree to this is because those on the Left convinced them it would not cost the government anything. That it would be an investment and the students would be able to pay the money back.
Well of course now we find out those were lies.

[Dimetrodon]

@Puffer Fish

You care so much about the next generation of students by not reforming the system that effectively forces people to take out loans due to higher tuition? Or ensuring people remain burdened by massive debt?

This is “enlightened centrist” crap.

Also, conservatives are becoming resentful of the college educated as a whole, so they would make the system worse anyway. Just out of spite.

[Fasces]

And if they didn't, why would anyone pay their student loans?

Also, piss poor credit is the only thing banks can do without government intervention, which isn't as much of a deterrent as you think it is.

Oh no, we might have to do away with the entire system and make education more affordable.

Anyway...

[wat0n]

Oh no, we might have to do away with the entire system and make education more affordable.

Anyway...

Who will do that?

Will Americans accept the tax hikes to fund those efforts, which will be statistically be more likely to fund free tuition for higher income, white applicants?

[Dimetrodon]

Who will do that?

Will Americans accept the tax hikes to fund those efforts, which will be statistically be more likely to fund free tuition for higher income, white applicants?

No, it would be more likely to help those with a negative net worth. Higher income students don’t have to take out loans.

[wat0n]

No, it would be more likely to help those with a negative net worth. Higher income students don’t have to take out loans.

Are you sure? Some universities can charge as much as $70k/year.

That's a lot, even for the upper middle class.

[Fasces]

Who will do that?

Will Americans accept the tax hikes to fund those efforts, which will be statistically be more likely to fund free tuition for higher income, white applicants?

I even said in my post it's politically unworkable. Americans worship their shitty system. You'd have to start with significant constitutional reform.

Many countries have cheaper and more effective education, alternatives for non college bound students, and higher degrees of social mobility but Americans are exceptional therefor fuck learning from others.

The American government at this point is one of the oldest continuing regimes in the world. It turns out pre-industrial consistutions are less than ideally suited to govern post-industrial societies. The shitty American education system is a victim of it.

[BlutoSays]

@BlutoSays

But wouldn't the taxpayers benefit from a well-educated workforce and see a return on that investment in terms of additional tax revenue being taken in the future due to the fact people are able to be more productive and innovative because they are better educated? Wouldn't a better-educated workforce be beneficial to the economy?

So we'll only have a well-edumacated workforce if the tax payer pays for it? No, I don't think so.

Our educational standards have dropped since we've been dumping more and more money into education. Do you think engineers in the 1970s were going to be forced into woke bullshit and CONSTANTLY? Absolutely not. Many of them were getting paid out of pocket and they felt it, so they wanted to make the most of it - STEM, programming, mechanical engineering, hard sciences. Constrast that with today, where many Americans are going into the easy subjects: journalism, psychology, polysci and other useless recreational degrees. We're dumping much more tax payer $$$ into education than we did before and those who have an appreciation for the value will take the difficult subjects.

It starts in middle to high school where standards have been lowered (much further than just grading on a curve) and stupid shit is introduced by democrats like pass/fail or no grades at all, "math is racist", open book tests and students that get an unlimited number of tries to pass a test. It has gotten ridiculous leading to the lowest common denominator as the goal.

I give you one thousand dollars to go in a store and buy what you want. You EARN one thousand dollars and go into the store to buy what you want. Results will be much different if you aren't paying for it. Quite seriously, Americans have it too good and are spoiled and entitled. I say that as an American. The fix to that is to take away easy money.


What are you going to do with these degrees (quite expensive)? But you get to hit up the tax payer for your mistakes?

http://guide.berkeley.edu/undergraduate ... ementstext

http://guide.berkeley.edu/undergraduate ... ementstext

http://guide.berkeley.edu/undergraduate ... ementstext

http://guide.berkeley.edu/undergraduate ... ementstext




Do you think some laborer or person that WORKS for a living and EARNS and takes care of their family wants to pay for these mistakes?

[Dimetrodon]

You'd have to start with significant constitutional reform.

The irony is that while many would view such a proposal as “unpatriotic” or even “treasonous,” and would stop listening right there, many of our early statesmen would have agreed with you on that.