By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Biggerboat1 on 14 April 2024
Edit Thread
sundin13 said:
Biggerboat1 said:

I feel you're being tad harsh here. I think there are a number of issued with this policy, if I'm understanding it correctly. Firstly it's treating a symptom rather than addressing the underlying cause. Is this gonna have to happen every decade to bail out the next generation? Why will their situation be any different than the current crop of debt-saddled graduates?

There's also a fairness component to this. It's not like your example above where an entitlement is given to people who's date of birth falls after a specific date. This forgiveness will treat people of the same age, studying the same courses at the same colleges, from the same backgrounds, differently based on whether they've been proactive in paying off their debt or not. Those who've endeavored to repay their debt will get nothing, whereas their contemporaries who've made it less of a priority will be let off the hook. In some instances this will be because some have made more money than others, but let's be honest, it's also because some people are more fiscally responsible than others.

It also potentially sets up a weird incentive structure going forward. Are future graduates gonna rush to repay their debts when they know there's a chance that it'll be done for them if they just wait it out...?

I live in Scotland and our fees get paid by the government. The loan that we take out for rent & living costs are repayable only when your income hits a certain threshold (27K per annum atm).  I think it's the case that whatever doesn't get repaid after 30 years is forgiven. This seems like a much better setup as obviously nobody is going to keep their salary under 27K just so they can dodge their loan in 3 decades time. But it also assists those who haven't been able to generate a decent income for whatever reason.

Bottom line, I think the US needs to address the route causes here rather than this measure, which yes, will help some vulnerable people, but will also reward others who've not been motivated or responsible enough to repay their debt when they could have, so I can see where chrkeller is coming from with some of his points tbh.

1) Talking about how it is a symptom is largely irrelevant. I don't see many people who are pro-loan forgiveness arguing against larger scale systemic fixes, but just because a symptom has causes, doesn't mean we shouldn't treat those symptoms. Seems like just deflection to me. It isn't an argument against loan forgiveness, it is just a different conversation.

2) The fairness component I also feel is nonsense. The entire point of society is progression. That means that people in the future won't have to suffer the same way as people in the past. It sucks that some people had to suffer under student loans, but that isn't a justification for making others suffer. 

3) Also worth noting that Biden has made progress in fixing the system as a whole such as implementing 20 year auto forgiveness (which is where a lot of this loan forgiveness is coming from), preventing interest from accruing beyond the initial principle (which is where a lot of the other loan forgiveness is coming from) and just making the current system work a lot better, like allowing the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program to actually work as intended for the first time.

1) I think it's relevant when someone who is taking a position against loan forgiveness, but for reform to the system that would benefit people going forward, is being labelled as selfish. I personally don't have a strong position on the loan forgiveness proposal as I don't know enough about the details. I did try to have a look but got a bit lost in the language being used in the particular articles I started to read...

2) How do repayments work in the US? Is it taken automatically upon reaching a certain salary threshold or is it voluntary? I mentioned earlier how it works in Scotland where certain degrees of debt forgiveness is built into the system & I'm perfectly happy with that. The bit that gives me pause around this policy (again, if I'm understanding it correctly), is that the rules are being changed in a retrospective way that benefits some who've simply not made the repayment of their student debt a priority, over those who have... I believe the forgiveness is means tested, only applying to those who make over 70K pa, or something, is that right? Does it also select for people who don't have significant assets? For instance, some may have bought a property/other assets rather than paying their debt, which again would leave a sour taste for those that paid their debt off before pursuing property ownership or investing in assets...

3) That's great, I think that's def a positive move!

BTW, let me just restate that my main gripe was with the direction this discussion was headed in terms of tone, rather than the particular policy itself.