…and I think that’s why this would never pass. The moral hazard is too screwy.
I don’t know the details of any candidate’s plan,but I would think that there would be some upper limit on the debt relief that any particular individual could receive, right?
Warren’s plan:
Highlights:
the cancellation of up to $50,000 in student loan debt for 42 million Americans
Give every American the opportunity to attend a two-year or four-year public college without paying a dime in tuition or fees
(Edit: Loan relief is also tied to income.)
The Harris plan that was linked above really doesn’t seem that radical, and I think some people like Lemon are reading way too much into it. Rephrasing the stuff from the website, it is just:
- making the terms of loan repayment easier
- cracking down on fraud in for-profit colleges
and then the real part would be
- making state and community colleges free or debt free
So it’s not like the government would pay your way to Harvard. Rather it’s that there would be a decent college education available to you if you couldn’t afford Harvard. If anything it seems like it would drive down the cost of private colleges, since they are now competing with “free”.
I don’t think the plan applies to private universities.
Timex
4223
Yeah, you can’t just have the government pay for any school you want to go to, because it’ll just end up being free money to private colleges.
If the government is gonna pay for your college, then it should be limited to community colleges. That will, in itself, likely reduce the prices that other colleges charge.
I’m not sure what the repercussions would be if you extended this to in-state public universities… it might work, but I’m not totally certain.
I mean, I literally am seeing this with my own children. One, for reasons completely beyond me, decided that she needed to go to an out of state public school that does not grant tuition reciprocity. Like there is literally no difference that I can see between this and her in-state school with respect to academic reputation, class sizes, or anything else that matters. But she thought the campus was “prettier and more comfortable,” so she is going to that out of state school.
My son is going to the flagship in-state school.
My daughter’s costs for her choice will be an additional $100,000 over four years, because the difference in tuition, room, and board between in-state and out-of-state is over $20,000 per year. Both of these schools are public state schools.
I seriously don’t understand why tax payers should have to foot the cost of her decision.
Sharpe
4226
I remain of the opinion that bringing down the costs of public university is far preferable to student loan forgiveness. I consider all these student loan forgiveness programs (with the partial exception of Warren’s, which is better thought out and means tested) to be efforts by the more liberal Dems to pander to the perceived desires of moderate middle class voters in a misguided effort to oppose the perception that “everything the Dems do is for poor people”. Again, I think truly liberal programs that are “broad based” (i.e. everyone pays in, everyone benefits) is the better way to go, and in the context of higher education, better funding for public universities, with all or at least most of the funding mandated to be applied to tuition decreases is the way to go.
Timex
4227
Sly’s daughter is still going to a public university… it’s just not in her home state. So ya, it appears that it’d end up being covered by Warren’s plan.
Ah missed his 2nd scenario. I assume residency requirements apply, but I didn’t see that in the proposal. But like anything else, these are just proposals and won’t survive intact. Maybe it’s just me but I don’t see policy statements as “this is what we are going to do” but rather as a goal and/or statement of principle. There’s still a sizable contingent of D’s and I assume most of these proposals will have to adapt in order to gain support.
When you say your “daughter’s costs” is it really hers, or are you footing the bill for her choice? If so, why?
Just curious. I feel like if her reasoning really is that the more expensive college is her choice because she’d be more comfortable there, as a parent of have to let her deal with the consequences and chalk up the debt to a life lesson.
I don’t disagree with this in sentiment. In practice, however, the consequences of the debt downstream are going to come back to haunt the parent, and I doubt the parent will choose let the child starve in the streets over maybe help the child out.
No way I’m footing the bill for something that stupid, no.
What you have said really is a separate problem that I have with the way the whole system works, but I’ll keep it brief since it is more about colleges and what we do to young people than it is a Presidential Election issue.
There is no way that we should be allowing an 18 year old to make a decision that incurs an additional $80,000 of debt. They simply do not have the life experience or thought process for such things, and furthermore, they are bombarded by idiot marketing materials and media that tells them they should “go where they are comfortable,” and similar bullshit, regardless of the cost.
And ultimately, the harm is very real, as parents get the choice of seeing their kid be homeless or help pay the debt.
And of course, our fucked up system won’t let this life lesson be wiped away by bankruptcy. No, instead, we have this idiot brew where we allow idealistic 18 year olds to rack up six figure debt that can’t be removed.
I agree, I think any plan to cut college costs will have to come with reasonable strings attached, e.g. that it be a public institution and at residency tuition rates. At least part of cutting college costs is about getting states to fund their state universities adequately with tax revenues anyway.
It’s hard to argue with this. That said, I don’t know why you mean I had to pay to go to school when he/she gets to go for free now is any less compelling than you mean I had to pay my own loan off while he/she gets loan forgiveness?
Seems to me that, if the cost in ANY state is the same, i.e. $0, then that removes that issue from the list of choices. It would be up to the school in question whether they accept the student or not, but the cost to them, and to the student, should be the same either way.
What it WILL change is the selectivity. More students will apply to attend schools in Southern California than used to, and fewer will be applying to North Dakota U. The schools will have to adjust their standards, and develop ways to try to attract students.
Sharpe
4235
My view is that we need to address the tuition issue first. Then, after that, a reasonable loan forgiveness program might make sense, along the lines of Warren’s ideas.
In the bigger picture, I feel that part of the meta-economic issue in our country is getting a handle on the “3 Hs” (home buying, health care, higher education) where market imperfections coupled with the zeal/blindness of the GOP towards market imperfections have caused those parts of our economy to increase in cost way out of proportion to wage growth. (The other bigger picture meta-econ issue being improving the share of growth that goes to the bulk of the population.)
So generally speaking on issues of health care, home buying and higher education, I want to address the systemic issue first, and then address mitigating the prior harm second.
KevinC
4236
Totally agree with this. I’m all for making education attainable to people without massive debt. I also think the massive student loan debt Americans are carrying around is a serious drag on our economy, and I’m up for programs to help address that (if not reducing debt directly, perhaps the elimination of interest, at least?). There would need to be limits and controls, though, and it’s something that I think progressives could have good discussions and compromises with real fiscal conservatives, if they still existed today. What will we cover and what will we not? Public schools? In-state schools? Community colleges only? How can we address the root problem of cost in the long term instead of triage for the wound? How would this new program be funded?
Alas, the “conservative” party these days is only interested in tax cuts for the wealthy and attacks on minorities, so there’s no one in Congress to really have those discussions with.
It won’t be the case that the cost is the same, because costs vary from place to place, so it’s unlikely to be the case that the tuition rate will necessarily be the same from one state to the next, and I don’t think it is at all unreasonable for a state to charge non-residents more, assuming the institution is being funded by local tax revenues.
I think rather than the federal government will write a check on your behalf for any school you want to go to, the answer has to be the federal government will partner with each state to fund state universities and community colleges so that they are cheap to residents of the state.
