895
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
895 points (98.0% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2221 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Does that sound fair? Harsh, but fair, yes. That's how compound interest works. When someone takes decades to pay off a loan, it's normal for the amount of interest to exceed the initial borrowing amount. Calculating payments on compound interest loans is high school math.
If you pay higher taxes, it's because you make more money. If you make more money it means the deal you made was a success -- your investment in higher education enabled you to get a higher paying job.
There's nothing about that that sounds predatory to me. Unpleasant? Sure. But, life is often unpleasant.
As for what the government should charge in interest, who knows. That's a question for politicians and voters to answer. Many countries around the world want their population to be educated, and as a result higher education is public, not private. It's also not for profit and is paid for in taxes paid by the entire population. Apparently the majority of US voters don't want that kind of system.
Would you rather be in the situation where you chose not to go to university and instead went directly into the workforce? You'd have 4 more extra years of earning from the time you didn't go to college / university, and you wouldn't have loans to pay off. But, you'd probably be making less money. I'm sure there are some people who looked at the student loans and realized just how much they'd be paying and for how long, and decided the deal wasn't worth it, that college / university wasn't for them. But, imagine how one of those people would feel today when they see the possibility that people who did make that deal might just have the loans cancelled so they get the education that enables higher wages, but without having to meet their obligations to pay back that loan?
Well considering the generations before me didn't have to take out the same kind of loans to get an education it does seem unfair. My parents told me to follow in their footsteps not knowing that the path had changed so drastically. The information given to students isn't sufficient for them to understand the cost of these loans. I understand how loans work but the interest is too high on these loans to be fair. The government shouldn't be changing any interest in my view because having an educated population is what we want. And going forward I would like to see them do the same for anyone going to college.
Just because you say that's how compound interest works doesn't change the fact that it's an unfair amount of interest. The interest rate is severely times higher than my mortgage and I can never get away from it. I was told that was the right choice if I wanted to get a job but I could have this same job without a degree.
If it's unfair, then I can see how you'd want to change the rules for future borrowers... but what seems unfair to me is changing the rules for past borrowers, especially once they've received the benefit of the loan.
If the loans are so unfair, why is the solution to cancel existing loans? Why not just prevent that injustice in the future? If the interest rates are so unfair that it has to affect existing contracts, what about compensating people who have fully paid off their loans? Should they be given some money back? If not, why not? If so, how far back would that go? And how much should they be given?
If someone can prove they were eligible to go to college / university but chose not to go because they knew these interest rates were unfair, should they be compensated? After all, you're saying that in hindsight they were right to avoid these unfair contracts. But, if the people who went get the benefit of the degree at with a loan that turns out to be fair (because the outstanding balance is canceled, say), then it's unfair to the people who made the smart choice with the information they had available at the time.
It seems to me that the only fair thing to do is to change the rules going forward. The people who agreed to an unfair deal in the past would have to live with their bad decisions.