Forums - Politics Discussion - Occupy abolishes $4 million in other people's student loan debt-- OOOHH! Me next!

So that's a whopping one three-hundred-thousandth of student loan debt paid then.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

gamrReview - Arthur Kabrick | My All-Time Top 50 | 2013 Metascores

                                        

Around the Network
the2real4mafol said:

University should be free at point of need to start with. So we aren't seemingly punished for doing higher education and wanting something better out of life. The current situation is just disgusting.

Although good on occupy but my point is this shouldn't have to be necessary 

Leading American universities cost far too much money to run for that to be feasible.

As for Britain, it was free until we decided that we had to quintuple the number of people going through it. Honestly, I think it would make a lot more sense for universities to be funded based on the quality of their teaching than for a PPE student at Oxford and student of modern dance at London Met to warrant the same amount of funding for their universities. One obviously costs far more to teach and creates far more value than the other.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

gamrReview - Arthur Kabrick | My All-Time Top 50 | 2013 Metascores

                                        

spurgeonryan said:

In total, the group spent a little more than $100,000 to purchase the $3.8 million in debt.


Wow, just think at that rate someone can pay $19,000 in debt with just $500.



chocoloco said:
badgenome said:

That's almost like saying collectors are taking the bank's business away, though. Banks have given up by the time they actually sell debt to collectors (vs. just hiring the collectors to collect), and those collectors have given up by the time they are willing to sell it to other collectors at this low of a rate.

So this gets a few people off the hook, but probably only the most dedicated of deadbeats, which I'm not sure is such a good thing. And the number is so insignificant that it does nothing at all to undermine the system in practical terms since getting your bad debt forgiven by OWS is about as likely as winning the lottery.

You obviously did not read the article. I scanned it, but picked up this. An example of what was paid of was for a woman with 18,000 in debt who got $600 paid off. Talk about a free ride and a belief-preserving bias on your part.

No, he wasn't biased.  The article clearly states that the Occupation people bought these loans for pennies on the dollar.  Loans are not sold for pennies on the dollar until they are heavily delinquent.  Note it says they bought $3.8 million worth of loans for $100,000.

The woman who got a $600 loan paid off doesn't mention the loan was delinquent or not, but given the earlier implication then it probably was, and they bought the delinquent loan for $15 or whatever, and then told her she doesn't have to pay anything.



My 8th gen collection

Kantor said:
the2real4mafol said:

University should be free at point of need to start with. So we aren't seemingly punished for doing higher education and wanting something better out of life. The current situation is just disgusting.

Although good on occupy but my point is this shouldn't have to be necessary 

Leading American universities cost far too much money to run for that to be feasible.

As for Britain, it was free until we decided that we had to quintuple the number of people going through it. Honestly, I think it would make a lot more sense for universities to be funded based on the quality of their teaching than for a PPE student at Oxford and student of modern dance at London Met to warrant the same amount of funding for their universities. One obviously costs far more to teach and creates far more value than the other.

How can a US university cost so much when the campus halls seem to be almost like army barracks but not even have a kitchen? I don't know how wide spread that is but thats what i heard when i thought about studying abroad and the USA was an option. 

If a US university costs are similar to my university i'm studying at. They are probably not spending all of it on research and education. The vice-chancellor at Plymouth (where i'm studying) gets nearly £300,000 a year and the chancellor gets over £500,000 a year. University can be ran far cheaper i think, but when management get over £100,000 a year it's just crazy. their pay should be closer to the lecturers and support staff. While costs like building new facilities are necessary but don't happen that often. And also you know it's stupid when some universities lower your fees if you get a high result.

Tuition fees are just a rip off 



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

Around the Network
the2real4mafol said:
sc94597 said:
the2real4mafol said:

University should be free at point of need to start with. 


There is no such thing as a free lunch. 

There is if we all chip in together. Not free but cheaper 

Time should be only the currency to spend 

I don't know how it works in the UK, but since the federal government has gotten involved in higher education the inflation rates for college have exceeded the average inflation by about six times. Why? Because the schools know that they can make the cost of education expensive and the actual burden won't be on the students but rather the government. If I were born in 1960 I could afford my top private (as a poor student - bottom 5%) by working part-time - 20 hours a week. Today because of high inflation rates I need to be subsidized 3/5th of my tuition/cost of education by my university, 1/5th by the federal government (loans/grants), and I still work part-time (20 hours) to pay the rest off. I'd rather the first option than the second, because in the end I would have much less debt. 

Honestly, I don't think the solution is to give more money to the universities and allow them to have control over prices like they do now because of subsidies. 



badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:

Equally, this undercuts the predatory collection agencies by taking some of their business away.

That's almost like saying collectors are taking the bank's business away, though. Banks have given up by the time they actually sell debt to collectors (vs. just hiring the collectors to collect), and those collectors have given up by the time they are willing to sell it to other collectors at this low of a rate.

badgenome said:

Of course they do, but OWS is buying debt for about 5 cents on the dollar. That's a pretty good indication that this debt belonged to people who were not making payments and were never going to. Especially if it's debt that a collection agency bought from a bank and the collectors themselves are now throwing their hands up. They're just getting some money where they previously would have gotten nothing. Not exactly undermining the system or anything; quite the contrary.

 

Not quite. Original creditors often enter into contracts with debt buyers called forward-flow agreements, wherein they agree to sell large portfolios theoretically worth $X years in advance. The process is highly automated: many of the accounts are worthless, but a large chunk have real value, which is why debt buying is quite a profitable industry. The accounts can vary in age from a few years to just a few months: it's the financial version of hobo stew.

Basically, don't be too hasty in assuming the purchased accounts were worthless, or that serious efforts to collect were undertaken by the bank, let alone a collection agency. Admittedly, it is likely that these particular accounts went through at least one debt buyer first, but that's actually fairly routine in the industry even for accounts with value in them. You're giving the collectors too much credit here.



sc94597 said:
the2real4mafol said:

There is if we all chip in together. Not free but cheaper 

Time should be only the currency to spend 

I don't know how it works in the UK, but since the federal government has gotten involved in higher education the inflation rates for college have exceeded the average inflation by about six times. Why? Because the schools know that they can make the cost of education expensive and the actual burden won't be on the students but rather the government. If I were born in 1960 I could afford my top private (as a poor student - bottom 5%) by working part-time - 20 hours a week. Today because of high inflation rates I need to be subsidized 3/5th of my tuition/cost of education by my university, 1/5th by the federal government (loans/grants), and I still work part-time (20 hours) to pay the rest off. I'd rather the first option than the second, because in the end I would have much less debt. 

Honestly, I don't think the solution is to give more money to the universities and allow them to have control over prices like they do now because of subsidies. 

That sounds interesting but how do we know if University would be affordable like that still if University wasn't interfered by government (I assume they are mostly private in America, most British universities are public and was free at point of use till 1997). 

In the 60s, the economy was very strong, debt was low, everyone was working and disposable income was very high. But the strong economy that existed in the 50s, 60s and early 70s couldn't last forever and i'm not sure if government can be blamed for the majority of problems. Ironic as it was, there was little competition for America back then and so it could do very well. 

And if you don't think better funding is the answer, how would you make it so university is actually affordable for everyone? 



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

Just remember the vast majority of your over paid tenured professors and deans are as far left as they can go without falling off. So they are happy to rail against these inequalities and unfairness of it all as long as it doesn't affect them.



Bummer, I can't be helped, as I'm all federal, no private.