• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

0% Student Loans

Look at the drop out rate in K-12 and the ever increasing cost per student graduated for that "basic" education. If every moron can not only go to college "free" but also major in underwater basketweaving, or some equally unmarketable field, simply to live on a "loan" for 4 to 7 more years then who will really benefit? I would support trying this college loan plan, on a trial basis, for only basic tuition/book assistance (no "other expenses", room and board would be covered) and only for STEM degrees, but with one important caveat - if you do not pay off the loan within ten years then you will be forced to do full time community service work (paid at minimum wage) with $1/hour taken off the loan balance until that entire student loan is repaid.

You had me until the indentured servant part. :rofl

Yeah, you're probably right about much of what you say. Our government never uses one freakin' ounce of common sense in those entitlements they implement. "Come one! Come all!"
 
use Elizabeth Warren's approach
whatever interest rate is charged to banks to borrow from the government should also be the rate of student borrowing

the feds can already offset one's tax return, or levy against their wage income, should they be in default of their student loan
the issue to be addressed is the interest rate students are obliged to pay
why should their be any higher than what the banks pay?

Garnishment of wages for education loans varies from state to state, but here, you have to take net wages, subtract 30 hours x minimum wage (currently $217.50), and 15% of that number is available for garnishment.

For grins and giggles, an example:

Net wages $360.00
Min wage line $217.50
Available $142.50
Garnishment $ 21.38

How long do you feel it would take to pay off a $25,000 loan, plus interest, on that basis?
 
As important as education is in the real world, should our government subsidize student loans so that these loans are given at 0% interest? I'm for it with a few caveats:

People with student loans will not receive income tax refunds until their loans are paid in full. Any refund or rebate they are entitled to will be used to pay down the balance of their student loans...in addition to their scheduled monthly payments.

When the student graduates from college and gets a job, his paycheck will be levied so that automatic payments will be taken out of his check every week/month/whatever.

What do you think?

Here in Ontario we have a programme run by the Provincial government called the Ontario Student Assistance Program, or OSAP. Every year of your university or college education, your financial situation is examined based on your and your benefactor's (like your parents) tax returns and any scholarships you may have. Based on this, the Province pays a lump sum of varying amounts to you for you to use in paying tuition, books, housing, food, and the like. After you finish your education, the Province allows a one year gap. After this one year, the student begins to pay back the loan at 0% interest. The province is very lenient in what payment you'd like to make.
 
As important as education is in the real world, should our government subsidize student loans so that these loans are given at 0% interest? I'm for it with a few caveats:

People with student loans will not receive income tax refunds until their loans are paid in full. Any refund or rebate they are entitled to will be used to pay down the balance of their student loans...in addition to their scheduled monthly payments.

When the student graduates from college and gets a job, his paycheck will be levied so that automatic payments will be taken out of his check every week/month/whatever.

What do you think?

Speaking as an Australian, I do. :lol:

Interest free loan from the government, not from the banks, with repayments automatically deducted once you start earning over a certain amount.


I was going to write something similar, then I came accross spud-meister's post. I can't agree to an automatic "garnishment" (which is what your levy is Maggie) unless it takes into account some minimum income level needed to cover estimated living expenses which would be exempt from such repayment procedures. Otherwise, this seems like a reasonable idea.
 
IMO, many of those using the excuse that cost is what's preventing them from furthering their education haven't exactly sought to stand out academically thus far. My first intuition would be to offer an interest rate which is a function of GPA. OTOH, I hate that you see schools giving more lenient grades these days because "we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings."
 
One of the biggest problems around is that schools with very high tuition for programs that will put people into lower paying fields receive student loan money.

Example: University of Chicago has a Social Work Masters degree. Social Work, while incredibly important, pays slightly less than **** all. But tuition alone for a full-time student in University of Chicago's master's degree program for Social Work costs about $40,000 per year. If it's a two year program, that's a 80K bill for a job that's probably going to start off paying maybe 45K if you're being very optimistic due to the fact that it is University of Chicago.

Frankly, Federal Student loans shouldn't cover the University of Chicago's social work program. It's not a smart bet. This person is probably going to be able to get a job afterward, sure, but they aren't going to make enough money to justify the additional expense when they can get the same exact degree at the University of Illinois at Chicago for a third of that cost.

And here's the clincher, for the Social Work programs these school's rankings aren't that far apart. University of Chicago is ranked 3rd overall, but UIC is ranked 24th. Both are pretty goddamned good schools to go to for Social Work. Is University of Chicago better? Sure, but not $50,000 better.
 
Speaking as an Australian, I do. :lol:

Interest free loan from the government, not from the banks, with repayments automatically deducted once you start earning over a certain amount.

How long has this program been implemented, and does it work?
 
One of the biggest problems around is that schools with very high tuition for programs that will put people into lower paying fields receive student loan money.

Example: University of Chicago has a Social Work Masters degree. Social Work, while incredibly important, pays slightly less than **** all. But tuition alone for a full-time student in University of Chicago's master's degree program for Social Work costs about $40,000 per year. If it's a two year program, that's a 80K bill for a job that's probably going to start off paying maybe 45K if you're being very optimistic due to the fact that it is University of Chicago.

Frankly, Federal Student loans shouldn't cover the University of Chicago's social work program. It's not a smart bet. This person is probably going to be able to get a job afterward, sure, but they aren't going to make enough money to justify the additional expense when they can get the same exact degree at the University of Illinois at Chicago for a third of that cost.

And here's the clincher, for the Social Work programs these school's rankings aren't that far apart. University of Chicago is ranked 3rd overall, but UIC is ranked 24th. Both are pretty goddamned good schools to go to for Social Work. Is University of Chicago better? Sure, but not $50,000 better.

Just a couple of observations about your post, Tucker.

To add another point about social worker, not only --as you've pointed out--are they generally paid crap, but they also tend to burn out fairly fast. To find someone working in that field for over 10 years is nothing short of miraculous.

Also, I cannot get over the cost of education in the US. It's been a while since I went to college, but I paid about $1,500 per year in 1991.
 
If you haven't noticed, the Government hasn't made a profit in a LONG time.... ;)

Good morning, DT, Jr! :2wave:

Yet they are still in business! Fancy that! :lamo:

Since a majority of our elected representatives are lawyers, it would be interesting to learn how many of them ever owned or ran a business, since they are making the rules businesses have to live with. From what I observe, they don't appear to have much knowledge in that area, other than how to screw things up! Obamacare is a good example, IMO. No wonder BHO has to backtrack and delay implementation! It apparently won't work as written. What happened to the lawmakers that used to care about the people they represent? :screwy:
 
OSAP works, dunno what you're talking about.

Yes, I know, but it seems that it's a bit different from when I got the loans over 20 years ago. But I'm curious about the program in Australia, and how it differentiates.
 
One of the biggest problems around is that schools with very high tuition for programs that will put people into lower paying fields receive student loan money.

Example: University of Chicago has a Social Work Masters degree. Social Work, while incredibly important, pays slightly less than **** all. But tuition alone for a full-time student in University of Chicago's master's degree program for Social Work costs about $40,000 per year. If it's a two year program, that's a 80K bill for a job that's probably going to start off paying maybe 45K if you're being very optimistic due to the fact that it is University of Chicago.

Frankly, Federal Student loans shouldn't cover the University of Chicago's social work program. It's not a smart bet. This person is probably going to be able to get a job afterward, sure, but they aren't going to make enough money to justify the additional expense when they can get the same exact degree at the University of Illinois at Chicago for a third of that cost.

And here's the clincher, for the Social Work programs these school's rankings aren't that far apart. University of Chicago is ranked 3rd overall, but UIC is ranked 24th. Both are pretty goddamned good schools to go to for Social Work. Is University of Chicago better? Sure, but not $50,000 better.

Social work is probably not "top tier" driven as Google and similar employers might be. So University of Chicago in pursuit of a career in social work, might not be a great choice. In fact, I tend to think University of Chicago is not a great choice for many disciplines, especially Business/Economics, since it has a uniquely out-of-touch laissez-faire koolaid guzzling nincompoop school of economics, which begs the question: who's running that school?
 
Good morning, DT, Jr! :2wave:

Yet they are still in business! Fancy that! :lamo:

Since a majority of our elected representatives are lawyers, it would be interesting to learn how many of them ever owned or ran a business, since they are making the rules businesses have to live with. From what I observe, they don't appear to have much knowledge in that area, other than how to screw things up! Obamacare is a good example, IMO. No wonder BHO has to backtrack and delay implementation! It apparently won't work as written. What happened to the lawmakers that used to care about the people they represent? :screwy:

We will never see those days again....
 
Just a couple of observations about your post, Tucker.

To add another point about social worker, not only --as you've pointed out--are they generally paid crap, but they also tend to burn out fairly fast. To find someone working in that field for over 10 years is nothing short of miraculous.

Also, I cannot get over the cost of education in the US. It's been a while since I went to college, but I paid about $1,500 per year in 1991.

I went to the bare-bones cheapest school I could for my masters because I knew I wasn't going into a profession that starts off paying well (mental health), and it was about $800 per class (on average). All told, my masters cost me about $16,000. Since I went to a community college for my associates before transferring to a four year school for my bachelors (UIC, because it was the cheapest "good" school in the area), my total cost for all of my post-high school education was about $30,000 or so, but since I worked full-time in construction while I went through my undergrad, I was able to pay out of pocket for a lot of it instead of taking student loans for it.

But I also went back to school as an adult so in order to get my education at all, I had to approach it in a non-traditional way.
 
I don't feel like looking for the links I have posted here before, but the biggest drivers in the cost of college education are the cost of the non-academic things to lure students in and the level of state subsidies to the colleges. States are under tremendous financial pressures in their budgets so one is not likely to realistically expect tuition to do anything but soar. Even if we were to give 0% student loans, it still does not address the root cause of the budget woes. We have things like Obamacare that has a 5 year funding cliff for states with something like a projected $5-$6B unfunded liability for the states at the end of the first 5 years. These things add up, and, unfortunately, the give is going to be in tuition subsidies in most places.
 
Speaking as an Australian, I do. :lol:

Interest free loan from the government, not from the banks, with repayments automatically deducted once you start earning over a certain amount.

I like this system. However, I might have one caveat: I think national resources should not be used for majors that do not have high demand in the career marketplace, if it can be helped. I might like to see some kind of restriction against majors in low demand. This would help focus resources on creating the most overall prosperity.
 
I went to the bare-bones cheapest school I could for my masters because I knew I wasn't going into a profession that starts off paying well (mental health), and it was about $800 per class (on average). All told, my masters cost me about $16,000. Since I went to a community college for my associates before transferring to a four year school for my bachelors (UIC, because it was the cheapest "good" school in the area), my total cost for all of my post-high school education was about $30,000 or so, but since I worked full-time in construction while I went through my undergrad, I was able to pay out of pocket for a lot of it instead of taking student loans for it.

But I also went back to school as an adult so in order to get my education at all, I had to approach it in a non-traditional way.

The biggest thing people need to take from your post is that if you don't already have the money saved up from your parents or on your own, you can still get your education and it's not supposed to be a walk in the park. Too many entitlement-minded people act like it should be simply "hand me some money so I can go to school full-time." I took loans for 6 years of undergrad, paid my student and car loan off in 2.5 years, then had my employer pay for me to go to grad school under the condition that I work for them part-time while in school and several years after graduating.
 
The biggest thing people need to take from your post is that if you don't already have the money saved up from your parents or on your own, you can still get your education and it's not supposed to be a walk in the park. Too many entitlement-minded people act like it should be simply "hand me some money so I can go to school full-time." I took loans for 6 years of undergrad, paid my student and car loan off in 2.5 years, then had my employer pay for me to go to grad school under the condition that I work for them part-time while in school and several years after graduating.

I had some major advantages, though, that others simply don't have.

1. I was already working a job that paid well despite not having a college education. Thus I was making enough money to survive as well as go to school.
2. I was single and didn't have kids. HUGE bonus.
3. I was in a large city which made it possible to have my existing job that paid well, despite my lack of education, while going to a good, but inexpensive school.
4. I've always found school to be very easy. I skipped classes all the time in order to work. Hell, I got an A in a course I showed up to a total of three times (First day of class, the midterm, and the final. I was able to use e-mail to turn in my papers). Not everyone can do that and pass their classes.

Without those four things, I don't think I would have been able to do it.
 
How long has this program been implemented, and does it work?

Since 1989. And it works well, for post-grad degrees, the government will give you loans up to a total of about $86,000, or higher of you're doing something like medicine.
 
The biggest thing people need to take from your post is that if you don't already have the money saved up from your parents or on your own, you can still get your education and it's not supposed to be a walk in the park. Too many entitlement-minded people act like it should be simply "hand me some money so I can go to school full-time." I took loans for 6 years of undergrad, paid my student and car loan off in 2.5 years, then had my employer pay for me to go to grad school under the condition that I work for them part-time while in school and several years after graduating.

Recently I checked the costs of my undergrad and grad school. Tuition had quadrupled since I was there. So while I, after scholarships, grants, work study, walked out with $16,500 in student loans - today, I wouldn't have been able to go to those schools or, if I had, I would have had four times the debt, which I sure didn't want. (And yes, I also worked outside of the school for most years.)

Now whether schools have jacked up tuitions because students are now willing to get large loans - I don't know. But it's a lot harder to go to a good college now than it used to be.

So given the current situation -why NOT give students their loans at the same interest rate banks get? They'll still be struggling. But it will make life after college a little easier and make it a little more likely they will go to and complete college, knowing that the loan load, while bad, won't be as bad as it might have been.

More educated citizens, sounds good to me.

Now I don't know how old you are, Mathematician, and it's none of my business. So this isn't addressed to you. But personally, when I hear old geezers like me talk about how things were when WE went to school - now that I checked out the tuition, I'm tuning them out. Because kids today are facing costs we never did.
 
As important as education is in the real world, should our government subsidize student loans so that these loans are given at 0% interest? I'm for it with a few caveats:

People with student loans will not receive income tax refunds until their loans are paid in full. Any refund or rebate they are entitled to will be used to pay down the balance of their student loans...in addition to their scheduled monthly payments.

When the student graduates from college and gets a job, his paycheck will be levied so that automatic payments will be taken out of his check every week/month/whatever.

What do you think?

I don't agree with any of that....

However I do agree that student loans should have an interest rate..

I'm done so..... There was and is no reason why anyone should just give anyone else money. People shouldn't be required to just fund a strangers education...
 
I don't agree with any of that....

However I do agree that student loans should have an interest rate..

I'm done so..... There was and is no reason why anyone should just give anyone else money. People shouldn't be required to just fund a strangers education...

We fund their education . . . or, in some cases, we fund their food stamps.
 
I don't think it's difficult to go to college (financially speaking). I started in 1998 with absolutely no money to my name. My parents couldn't help me out either. I had a small scholarship from my ACT scores and I received the PELL grant as well. But getting student loans was simple and I had more than enough to pay for books, tuition, food, housing and even some left over to help pay for any other extra expenses I incurred throughout my school years. I graduated with....wait for it.... $62,000 in school loans in 2003. I started paying them back in 2004 and I'll be done paying them next summer (20 years early, I might add). It's easy to get loans for school....the kicker is getting a job where you can pay them back.

I think having it taken out of your paycheck is a good idea. I always paid a lot more than my consolidation payments were set up for so I guess you could just add to it every month if you wanted to.
 
i'm for removing every possible financial disincentive to education. we need to develop our national intellectual resources so that we actually have a chance of solving serious problems on the horizon. i'd make it free if i could wave a wand and make it work somehow. zero percent loans is pretty much the absolute minimum we should be doing, so i certainly support it.
I agree with this, but... I also believe in the psychological concept that (most) people don't take things seriously if they don't have to invest anything of themselves into it.

Most kids that I have ever known haven't taken proper care of cars given to them, but generally do with the first car they buy with their own money. Or, it's funny how turning lights off when they leave a room is suddenly important when their name is on the bill and the money is coming out of their account. And, for the most part, college students are still essentially kids.
 
I agree with this, but... I also believe in the psychological concept that (most) people don't take things seriously if they don't have to invest anything of themselves into it.

Most kids that I have ever known haven't taken proper care of cars given to them, but generally do with the first car they buy with their own money. Or, it's funny how turning lights off when they leave a room is suddenly important when their name is on the bill and the money is coming out of their account. And, for the most part, college students are still essentially kids.

they are kids. the parent has to demand results, like mine did. however, putting a significant financial obstacle between the average kid and college is a very bad idea for the country, IMO.

FWIW, i was given my first car, and i took great care of it as a teen. my parents told me that my job was to be a student, and as long as i did that, i could have the car. i loved that car so much that i still have it in storage. hope to restore it someday.

they did make me work **** jobs in college on summer break, though. hated it, but it gave me perspective.
 
Back
Top Bottom