The person who took out the loan and promised to pay the loan back is the one responsible for paying back the loan. What if I decide it's not fair I have to pay back my home loan, or auto loan. Who is then responsible for paying those back. They received their education so that part of the agreement was satisfied so now they get to hold up their end of the barging. It isn't up to the taxpayers to pay back their loan because they don't want to or think that it isn't fair. Welcome to being an adult!
But of course studying should be free or next to free. It is in much of the world and it is proven beneficial.
It comea down to simple math. Lets assume uneducated you earn 35K a year. Very representative of a hard working person in the U. S with a lower income job. With a decent education, that hops up to for simplicity 70K.
Both, again for simplicty, pay 20% taxes. Each year the educated person is paying 7K more. On 10 years of paying taxes they have, with only their additional productivity, paid back the loan. Now in reality, we might need a few more years to make up for inflation and more. So lets say 15 years.
Graduate at 24. At 39 you are a even with if you did not study in terms of contribution. Every year extra you work, lets assume another 25 years? You generate pure profit foe your country.
Most other countries understand this concept. It is fairly simple math and easily verifiable over time with so much leeway that dropouts and more does not undo the benefits. Investing in your own citizens' ability to produce high quality goods and services is just about the most sensible thing you can do economically. Right up there with investing in their health.
Little edit. I missed that the average student loan is only 38K. So in reality, this is easily paid back in taxes alone in 6 years. Lets call it 10 for society to clearly benefit.
I am not disagreeing with you based on that simplified logic. But we are really discussing free education. You are getting stuck on the transition towards it. Which again should be paid by government and then repaid manifold by the recipient in tax revenue.
This is how student loan forgiveness already works. Of course we should not punish other people along the way. We should however acknowledge that you becoming an engineer or alike is a benefit to our society. Our society sponsoring that to then have you pay it back five times over is a net positive.
Do you disagree? I can understand being upset about a transition. It feels unfair, has some practical difficulties of implimentation. Although I struggle to see why others must struggle because I did. But do you disagree with it being beneficial or a good change? That is the actual discussion here.
" But we are really discussing free education. You are getting stuck on the transition towards it."
We or YOU? I ASKED THE QUESTION AND YOU ARE HELL-BENT ON TWISTING IT TO FIT YOUR OWN NEEDS. If you want to talk about a transition then post your own question talking about it. I don't give a shit about the Utopia you very much want, I'm talking about how it is currently. Who should pay for the loan you promised to pay back? Hint: your neighbor did not promise to pay back your loan. The college never promised to pay back your loan. The bank never said they would forgive your loan.
In which event I already provided the answer. Which coincidentally is also how it actually works. An answer you skipped.
If you get this riled up over having your argument answered based on what it represents you clearly struggle in having your views challenged and already know you are wrong about this.
You're too stupid or chickenshit to answer the question, but it's obvious that you have no plans to honor your commitment. you say your neighbor should have to pay for the loan that you took out and promised to pay back. That's all you had to say.
What sh! thead said the bank should forgive their loan. That’s preposterous. A money illiterate vote for that I assure you. If not the borrower, then the college should pay it off as they cannot forgive the loan themselves. That won’t happen though. So it has to be the one who borrowed the money.
Perhaps high schools should have a class on loans, and specifically college loans.
US Higher education is a scam. FOR PROFIT loans to banks at commercial rates is a rip off to people and citizens and of low cultural value. It basically says the ONLY valid form of education is stuff that SELLS shit and creates SHIT to SELL.
If you chose not to answer the question why didn't you include your zodiac sign? Inquiring minds want to know. Do you like ice cream on your Apple pie?
The zodiac signs change over time just ever so slowly but actually very quickly as we're traveling through space at more than 10 times the speed of sound so my Virgo sign is no longer the same as it was when I was born last century. Therefore there would be no significant benefit to including it. My food preferences would depend on whether the pie was hot or cold. Ice cream flavour is also not mentioned so it is impossible to answer.
I did give an intelligent answer. If it's not an answer you like then that says more about how the world sees the US education system that sees it's "customers" as just chattel to use for profit and not citizens who deserve to have the opportunity to get the best access to the things society is meant to bring to there communities.
Society. The ones who will benefit from me being more able to apply my knowledge and skills to make things better for all AND the current and future generations who may benefit from my contributions. Educated workforces will be able to innovate and generate better than those who lack skills
Telling the bank you'd pay TO GET ONLY to get access is state sponsored commercially supported corruption. It's like bribing citizens to improve themselves for the benefit of all, at THEIR own expense. The same people would charge you to breathe if they could measure it.
NO, I've never needed a loan for higher education and was actually PAID to endure it. Now I pay for others to get it FREE because an educated workforce will be able to make better life choices, be more productive and choose leaders to be smarter instead of TV reality show comperes.
I am saying there shouldn't have been a NEED for a loan and that the state should NEVER have allowed commercial rates to be applied to individuals who sought to improve themselves AND SOCIETY by seeking education. That the banks are parasitical by being part of this and that they should be penalised for failing to support people improving society in favour of shareholder profits. Banks COULD be used to support the education of the population but ONLY with inflation level interest rates as was done in UK when loans were provided for students. If a bank doesn't provide these services, it should have it's right to operate removed by government as this is a benefit for all, not just banks.
If I ask you if you prefer Coca-Cola or Pepsi cola how do I prevent people from saying Orange juice? Or is that even possible unless I like this? Why are people unable to answer the most simple questions?
Ford or Chevy? "I take the bus."
Teach me how to prevent people from not answering the actual question. What advice do you have?
Give options of NEITHER or BOTH or SOMETHING ELSE. That way the engagement will be greater which is a more thorough way of discovering more about the truth instead of trying to align it up for a narrative
If you HAVE money as a BANK who's job is to provide liquidity to society, then YES and it's a gamble that is based around RISK that the facility of running a financial institute to get money from having money should be made to take.
Banks aren't your friends, they are businesses that provide services that should be regulated with expectations put on them to PROVIDE those services to citizens that aren't JUST about profiting from them.
Then who forced you to sign with the devil? You can skate around this all you want but you can't answer the question.
A guy on this thread said that everything should be free. I totally agree. But unfortunately, real life isn't about Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory..
At the end of the day, someone has to pull the plow.
NO one is saying it's free, it costs SOCIETY and BANKS shouldn't profit from CITIZENS making society better. They can make profit from mortgages, insurance and all that but NOT society improvements. Those are risks society (if it's properly civilised and not some corrupt oligarchy) should put onto banks IF BANKS WANT TO MAKE PROFIT in society instead of allowing the banks to MAKE DECISIONS to shape society. They SERVE not LEAD or RUN.
Yes that's like the rest of the world because they see the idiocy FROM THE OBJECTIVE perspective. NO one wants chaos except the chaos profiteers who take advantage of disorder irrespective of who gets fucked
That's not true. Americans COULD have a great country but they refuse to stop being stupid and obsessed with individualism and let corporations run their society. Americans LIVE to work, most of the rest of the civilisation WORK to LIVE because the priority is to HAVE A LIFE not an OCCUPATION or PROFESSION that defines who and what you are.
What I said could be reality but Americans are so up inside their own egos and paranoid about each other they fail to see the wood for the trees. The immaturity of the culture is blatant and disappointing.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions