Should Wall Street pay off student debt

[*michaelsean*]

(06-26-2019, 11:24 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Bernie Sanders wants Wall Street to pay off the US's $1.6 trillion student-loan debt. Even Democrats are likely to push back on the plan.

Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced Senate legislation on Monday to eliminate the $1.6 trillion in student-loan debt held in the US and make all public higher education tuition-free, carving new progressive territory in a competitive Democratic presidential primary.


[*]The bill would have the federal government pay to erase virtually all the student debt held by an estimated 45 million Americans with a new tax on Wall Street transactions. The Sanders campaign said the tax would generate $2 trillion over 10 years to cover its cost.
[*]It's part of a broader package from Sanders that would also make public universities, trade schools, and community colleges tuition-free.
[*]But the Sanders plan is likely to face objections from some centrist Democrats concerned about the bill benefiting wealthier people, as well as from conservatives worried about its high cost.
[*]
Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders proposed on Monday a plan to eliminate the $1.6 trillion in student-loan debt held in the US and make all public higher education tuition-free, carving out new territory in a competitive Democratic presidential primary.
Introduced into the Senate, the bill would have the federal government pay to erase virtually all the student debt held by an estimated 45 million Americans with a new tax on Wall Street transactions. The Sanders campaign said the tax would generate $2 trillion over 10 years to cover its cost, an expense likely to trigger opposition from moderate Democrats.
At a press conference unveiling the proposal, Sanders said: "We will make a full and complete education a human right in America to which all of our people are entitled."

It's part of a broader package from Sanders that would also make public universities, trade schools, and community colleges tuition-free. Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar and Pramila Jayapal are introducing a companion bill in the House. Both are progressive lawmakers who have championed tuition-free college during their time in Congress.
Federal data shows that the share of student debt has doubled over the past decade from $700 billion to $1.6 trillion, overtaking credit cards and car loans as the biggest share of debt Americans hold. The average college student graduates with at least $30,000 in debt, CNBC reported.
The Vermont senator's plan to erase student debt is one of the most ambitious proposals yet from the sprawling Democratic presidential-primary field, put forward only two days before the first primary debates in Miami. And it aligns with his campaign's message to address the economic anxieties of Americans and boost the middle class. In an interview with CBS's "Face the Nation" that aired yesterday, Sanders described student debt as "an incredible burden on an entire generation of people."
Two other Democratic candidates have proposed a variety of student-debt-forgiveness plans. Sen. Elizabeth Warren put forward a plan with a price tag of $640 billion that would combine tuition-free college and up to $50,000 in debt forgiveness, and it is also centered on a new tax on Wall Street. Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro's plan would offer limited debt forgiveness for people receiving public assistance.

Colleen Campbell, the director of Postsecondary Education at the Center for American Progress, a center-left think tank, told INSIDER the Sanders proposal brings "a left flank" on an issue that's increasingly important to the Democratic electorate — many of whom are young millennials saddled with student-loan debt.
"By proposing a universal plan, you essentially end up in a situation where there aren't false positives of people who might have a higher income but really be struggling," Campbell said. "But I think there's merits to consider that apply to universal plans that don't necessarily apply to ones that are more means-tested."
But the Sanders plan is likely to face objections from some centrist Democrats concerned that the bill benefits wealthy people, as well as from conservatives worried about its high cost.


Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative think tank, criticized the Sanders campaign's number crunching, tweeting that the cost of the plan could be $3 trillion, adding, "Even Sanders rosy financial tax estimate is not close to enough."

Sara Goldrick-Rab, a professor at Temple University and an expert in higher-education financing, told The Washington Post that the proposal gave her some reservations. "There's a piece of me that has seen how widespread the pain is, including among people you might say are financially fine. But there's a piece of me that knows what the pot looks like, and says, 'That's not the best use of the money,'" she said.
During his presidential campaign in 2016, Sanders campaigned for tuition-free college regardless of income.


There's the article so you can read it

[*]

Hell yeah!  I just had a daughter graduate, and a son that will (hopefully) be going in a year.  I own mutual funds so really not any transactions.  Bring it on Bernie.  My turn to be a taker.  

[Dill]

(06-26-2019, 11:24 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: [*]Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders proposed on Monday a plan to eliminate the $1.6 trillion in student-loan debt held in the US and make all public higher education tuition-free, carving out new territory in a competitive Democratic presidential primary.

[*]

All for a tax on financial transactions.

Just curious about how free public higher ed would affect the US ed system. 

Would it make private schools even more prestigious?

A realistic initial goal would be to reduce tuition by 1/4 at public institutions over three years.

Then reduce it to half over ten years. Stop there to assess.

[Benton]

(06-26-2019, 12:26 PM)Dill Wrote: [*]

All for a tax on financial transactions.

Just curious about how free public higher ed would affect the US ed system. 

Would it make private schools even more prestigious?

A realistic initial goal would be to reduce tuition by 1/4 at public institutions over three years.

Then reduce it to half over ten years. Stop there to assess.

[*]

There are a few countries that offer free post secondary. I like that. Trade or 2 year degree is free (or close to it). Anything beyond is on you. 

Overall I think the "you have to have a degree" mindset is a bad.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-26-2019, 01:30 PM)Benton Wrote: [*]

There are a few countries that offer free post secondary. I like that. Trade or 2 year degree is free (or close to it). Anything beyond is on you. 

Overall I think the "you have to have a degree" mindset is a bad.

[*]

Eff that.  Gimme my 80 grand. Well not me.  Best send it right to whoever it's owed to.  I still got some redneck in me.

[Dill]

(06-26-2019, 01:30 PM)Benton Wrote: [*]

There are a few countries that offer free post secondary. I like that. Trade or 2 year degree is free (or close to it). Anything beyond is on you. 

Overall I think the "you have to have a degree" mindset is a bad.

I'm with you on the trade and 2 year degrees.

But the "you have to have a degree" mindset is embedded in a larger, more serious problem--the view that education is just job training, and higher ed is just higher job training. From that starting point, the problem of job training, access to other and cheaper kinds looks like a solution. Education--i.e., liberal education--is not in the picture at all.

 I'm not for that version of higher ed.

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2019, 01:17 AM)Dill Wrote: I'm with you on the trade and 2 year degrees.

But the "you have to have a degree" mindset is embedded in a larger, more serious problem--the view that education is just job training, and higher ed is just higher job training. From that starting point, the problem of job training, access to other and cheaper kinds looks like a solution. Education--i.e., liberal education--is not in the picture at all.

 I'm not for that version of higher ed.

That's capitalism for you.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2019, 09:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's capitalism for you.

Well I'm not dropping 80 grand so I can better discuss archaic philosophy with Dill.  

[Dill]

(06-27-2019, 10:55 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well I'm not dropping 80 grand so I can better discuss archaic philosophy with Dill.  

?? you just relinquished your claim. They transferred it to my account.

I spent four hundred dollars on a leather bound complete works of Plato and Aristotle,
and used the rest for a motorcycle and a brand new Silverado.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2019, 11:31 AM)Dill Wrote: ?? you just relinquished your claim. They transferred it to my account.

I spent four hundred dollars on a leather bound complete works of Plato and Aristotle,
and used the rest for a motorcycle and a brand new Silverado.

Nah I already dropped that on my daughter.  I'm getting what's mine.

[Au165]

Do those who actually paid their debt themselves get a refund? I am up for making higher education free, or cheaper, but I am not interested in paying off someone who knowingly took on 100k in debt for a fine arts degree. What you are rewarding here is people who improperly estimated their earning power based on their chosen degree, or simply didn't care. That is an insult to those of who put "following your dreams" aside for making smart financial decisions in terms of career and education choices.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-27-2019, 02:27 PM)Au165 Wrote: Do those who actually paid their debt themselves get a refund? I am up for making higher education free, or cheaper, but I am not interested in paying off someone who knowingly took on 100k in debt for a fine arts degree. What you are rewarding here is people who improperly estimated their earning power based on their chosen degree, or simply didn't care. That is an insult to those of who put "following your dreams" aside for making smart financial decisions in terms of career and education choices.

And that's a fine point. What I would do is create a list of degrees that are necessary and that we have a shortage of people working in those fields, and those peeps get 100% of the max refund that will be allocated. Then other degrees people would get half or less depending on the usefulness of the degree.

[Au165]

(06-27-2019, 03:23 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And that's a fine point. What I would do is create a list of degrees that are necessary and that we have a shortage of people working in those fields, and those peeps get 100% of the max refund that will be allocated. Then other degrees people would get half or less depending on the usefulness of the degree.

I'd be more able to stomach something like this. Teacher? sure give them 100%. Leisure studies? Kick rocks. 

[Aquapod770]

(06-26-2019, 12:26 PM)Dill Wrote: [*]

All for a tax on financial transactions.

[*]

I'm surprised nobody has brought this up yet, but Sweden actually tried Bernie boi's idea. 

https://www.ft.com/content/b9b40fee-9236-11e2-851f-00144feabdc0

It was pretty much a huge disaster. 

[Dill]

(06-27-2019, 04:29 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: [*]

I'm surprised nobody has brought this up yet, but Sweden actually tried Bernie boi's idea. 

https://www.ft.com/content/b9b40fee-9236-11e2-851f-00144feabdc0

It was pretty much a huge disaster. 

[*]

Dead link? Or do I have to subscribe to the Financial Times?

[Dill]

(06-27-2019, 02:27 PM)Au165 Wrote: Do those who actually paid their debt themselves get a refund? I am up for making higher education free, or cheaper, but I am not interested in paying off someone who knowingly took on 100k in debt for a fine arts degree. What you are rewarding here is people who improperly estimated their earning power based on their chosen degree, or simply didn't care. That is an insult to those of who put "following your dreams" aside for making smart financial decisions in terms of career and education choices.

(06-27-2019, 03:23 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And that's a fine point. What I would do is create a list of degrees that are necessary and that we have a shortage of people working in those fields, and those peeps get 100% of the max refund that will be allocated. Then other degrees people would get half or less depending on the usefulness of the degree.

Does the market then decide what is "necessary" or "useful"? "Earning power"? 

As I mentioned above--seems the rationale for liberal education and citizenship is truly lost, and at a time they seem most necessary and useful. 

[Aquapod770]

(06-27-2019, 04:42 PM)Dill Wrote: [*]

Dead link? Or do I have to subscribe to the Financial Times?

[*]

Hmm. That's weird, it let me read it at first but now asks for a subscription   Here are a few more links about the same thing: 

https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5302017

https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-explains-why-a-european-financial-transaction-tax-wont-work-2011-9

https://www.modernmarketsinitiative.org/archive/2018/11/13/this-is-a-test-post

[Dill]

(06-27-2019, 04:49 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: [*]

Hmm. That's weird, it let me read it at first but now asks for a subscription   Here are a few more links about the same thing: 

https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5302017

https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-explains-why-a-european-financial-transaction-tax-wont-work-2011-9

https://www.modernmarketsinitiative.org/archive/2018/11/13/this-is-a-test-post

[*]

Looks like a substantial point.

Would US traders also move their businesses?  I'm not sure. Perhaps not if the tax ultimately costs less than the move.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2019, 05:02 PM)Dill Wrote: [*]

Looks like a substantial point.

Would US traders also move their businesses?  I'm not sure. Perhaps not if the tax ultimately costs less than the move.

[*]

I hope the guy isn't just looking at the number of trades we currently have and going by that like it seems those countries in the one article must have done.  They didn't even come close to their projections.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-27-2019, 04:49 PM)Dill Wrote: Does the market then decide what is "necessary" or "useful"? "Earning power"? 

As I mentioned above--seems the rationale for liberal education and citizenship is truly lost, and at a time they seem most necessary and useful. 

Yes market would dictate the degrees.

Currently
Skilled Trades
Technology
Business
Finance
Medical
Engineering
Scientists
Education

All of those are in high demand jobwise.

Maybe find a way to limit the number of people that want a specific degree and award the ones that seem the best fit. The others can still take it, they just pay out of pocket and get a reduced amount from the gov rather than the full reimbursement. There is always a way, just might not be the most desired one.

[Au165]

(06-28-2019, 12:43 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yes market would dictate the degrees.

Currently
Skilled Trades
Technology
Business
Finance
Medical
Engineering
Scientists
Education

All of those are in high demand jobwise.

Maybe find a way to limit the number of people that want a specific degree and award the ones that seem the best fit. The others can still take it, they just pay out of pocket and get a reduced amount from the gov rather than the full reimbursement. There is always a way, just might not be the most desired one.

I always felt like it would make sense for schools to price tuition based on your major and it's expected earning potential. Everyone pays the freshman fee to take general classes then after that it is wholly dictated by the major and it's potential earning power. I am also intrigued by the idea of, instead of taking loans you can simply promise a percentage of your first x years of wages as their payment. If you can't find a good paying job because of the degree they awarded you then you both can feel the pain together. This would incentivize the schools to help you get not just any job but a good paying one. It also would force schools who peddle in worthless degrees to reconsider their business model.