• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Economics, politics and the election

How ... does cancelling student debt help rich kids more than poor ones?
Sure, the sums might be higher, but the impact on the poorer is too
 
Poor people for the most part, don't go to college. Rich kids do and those that aren't rich do have a better chance of becoming rich afterword. Most of the debt is carried by folks with Masters and PhDs, even more likely to get rich, or just be really bad choices.

Having graduated college you are likely in the top 40% of wage earners so well positioned to pay off relatively low interest loans.
 
ahhell said:
Poor people for the most part, don't go to college. Rich kids do and those that aren't rich do have a better chance of becoming rich afterword. Most of the debt is carried by folks with Masters and PhDs, even more likely to get rich, or just be really bad choices.

Having graduated college you are likely in the top 40% of wage earners so well positioned to pay off relatively low interest loans.
Click to expand...

That sounds reasonable. What are the sources for your claims here?
 
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/who-owes-the-most-in-student-loans-new-data-from-the-fed/

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/03/myth-student-loan-crisis/309231/

Likewise, education debt is concentrated in households with high levels of educational attainment. In 2019, the new Fed data show, households with graduate degrees owed 56 percent of the outstanding education debt—an increase from 49 percent in 2016. For context, only 14 percent of adults age 25 or older hold graduate degrees. The 3 percent of adults with professional and doctorate degrees hold 20 percent of the education debt. These households have median earnings more than twice as high as the overall median ($106,000 vs. $47,000 in 2019).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
Poor people for the most part, don't go to college. Rich kids do and those that aren't rich do have a better chance of becoming rich afterword. Most of the debt is carried by folks with Masters and PhDs, even more likely to get rich, or just be really bad choices.

Having graduated college you are likely in the top 40% of wage earners so well positioned to pay off relatively low interest loans.
Click to expand...

I was a poor kid, I went to college. I took out student loans. It took me about 15 years to pay off those loans. And oh, BTW, back then student loans were dischargeable through bankruptcy.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
How ... does cancelling student debt help rich kids more than poor ones?
Sure, the sums might be higher, but the impact on the poorer is too
Click to expand...

i personally don’t think the rich are carrying student loan balances for a decade. mostly i see this assertion and it’s based around college degree earners tend to have higher incomes, therefore it’s primarily rich people that, for reasons unknown, make minimum payments forever on their loans. or they pick on the make believe group of recent grads with basket weaving degrees. i think there’s a rather large subsection of college degree earners who aren’t rich, but middle class earners that make their monthly payments that this primarily benefits.
 
I was a poor kid, I went to college, I paid of my loans in a few years. I didn't bother with paying off the Loans I got for the Master's on account of the interest being so low for a few extra years and because I didn't have to during covid. But, that anecdote doesn't mean much.

There are other anecdotes of folks with >100k but that's rare. The stats noted above tell a more accurate story.

So, sure, it doesn't benefit the top 1% but it does benefit the next 39%. And sure, the recent college grad isn't rich or usually even upper middleclass but the college grad 10 years on is far more likely to be either than the non-college grad who is far less likely to have student debt and thus much less likely to benefit from student debt forgiveness.
 
Last edited:
"It is true that people with higher incomes hold more debt – often because they attended graduate school and, if the loan is bigger, it would be more of a "windfall" to them.

But people with lower incomes also attend college, and on an individual level may benefit proportionately more from student loan debt forgiveness. For those, it could be a game changer. "

From: https://www.statesman.com/story/new...-held-rich-and-upper-middle-class/7586541001/

What the gov't should do is qualify debt-forgiveness based on income to student debt ratio.
 
thaiboxerken said:
"It is true that people with higher incomes hold more debt – often because they attended graduate school and, if the loan is bigger, it would be more of a "windfall" to them.

But people with lower incomes also attend college, and on an individual level may benefit proportionately more from student loan debt forgiveness. For those, it could be a game changer. "

From: https://www.statesman.com/story/new...-held-rich-and-upper-middle-class/7586541001/

What the gov't should do is qualify debt-forgiveness based on income to student debt ratio.
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
acbytesla said:
I noticed you didn't address the infrastructure argument or the social safety net.
Click to expand...

No, we are not going to do this thing where we are discussing something specific, I respond with specifics and you don't answer or address it and then change the subject to something else. You said food is unaffordable. You said cars are unaffordable. I gave you the data and the comparisons. If you want me to go on another link sourced sermon on a new topic, pleases address what we are currently talking about with something more than what you think. Why do you think it, and what do you base it on?
 
thaiboxerken said:
"It is true that people with higher incomes hold more debt – often because they attended graduate school and, if the loan is bigger, it would be more of a "windfall" to them.

But people with lower incomes also attend college, and on an individual level may benefit proportionately more from student loan debt forgiveness. For those, it could be a game changer. "

From: https://www.statesman.com/story/new...-held-rich-and-upper-middle-class/7586541001/

What the gov't should do is qualify debt-forgiveness based on income to student debt ratio.
Click to expand...

We had a long thread on this you could peruse here.

Putting aside the fact we are already generous with loan forgiveness for borrowers that have low income, here were my thoughts on a middle ground from then.

rdwight said:
If we want to be honest about who to target, let's just target those with a certain level of debt. At a 10k loan forgiveness cutoff (only those owing tht or less), you would help 16.3 million borrowers (35.8% of total) at a total cost of.. $78.5 billion (5.4% of total outstanding loans). 66% of all loan defaults are from within this group. I think you could get a lot more people on board with that.

Feeling generous? Knock it up to those with 20k or less in debt. Now you're hitting an additional 9.3 million borrowers raising it to 56.2% of all borrowers. Total cost $214.1 billion. Know what percentage of those that default have 20k or less debt? 84%. We've now solved the student loan crisis. Moral hazard aside, that makes a lot more sense to me.
Click to expand...
 
rdwight said:
No, we are not going to do this thing where we are discussing something specific, I respond with specifics and you don't answer or address it and then change the subject to something else. You said food is unaffordable. You said cars are unaffordable. I gave you the data and the comparisons. If you want me to go on another link sourced sermon on a new topic, pleases address what we are currently talking about with something more than what you think. Why do you think it, and what do you base it on?
Click to expand...

LMAO. You go off on Democratic priorities and fairly mention, canceling student debt and subsidizing down payments for first time home buyers. (Sounds pretty specific to me. :rolleyes: I point out the total opposition by the GOP for 90 years of every social safety net program. And you decide that we're not going to talk about it? Or we're not going to talk about the decades of ignoring infrastructure requirements?

I can certainly see and even understand your opposition to the proposals you mentioned. But I must admit I find your unwillingness to acknowledge the importance of a social safety net or the state of America's infrastructure not just typical of the far right but shows you're not really being an honest interlocutor.
 
acbytesla said:
LMAO. You go off on Democratic priorities and fairly mention, canceling student debt and subsidizing down payments for first time home buyers. (Sounds pretty specific to me. :rolleyes: I point out the total opposition by the GOP for 90 years of every social safety net program. And you decide that we're not going to talk about it? Or we're not going to talk about the decades of ignoring infrastructure requirements?

I can certainly see and even understand your opposition to the proposals you mentioned. But I must admit I find your unwillingness to acknowledge the importance of a social safety net or the state of America's infrastructure not just typical of the far right but shows you're not really being an honest interlocutor.
Click to expand...

I feel like you are not noticing the flow of this conversation. You asked "And what exactly is government restraint?" I answered with a few policies I disagree with that show of lack of it. They total close to $2 trillion dollars. This is not small potatoes. It would pay for nearly 20 years of the expanded CTC credit I already said I agree with. You introduced the social safety net and infrastructure stuff and want to me defend and elaborate on it. Instead of answering my direct questions on what we were discussing.
 
New York
CNN
—
Stocks rose Friday morning as Wall Street cheered a signal from Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell that long-awaited interest rate cuts are finally coming.

The Dow rose 253 points, or 0.6%, after jumping more than 400 points earlier in the day. The S&P 500 gained 0.6% and the Nasdaq Composite added 0.8%. All three major indexes are on pace to end the week higher.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/23/investing/stocks-powell-jackson-hole/index.html

That’s great!
 
The real truth is the POTUS is not really all that powerful when it comes to the economy. I don;t think a President can bring on or stop a recession,for instance, he can just manage the response to it
When the economy is bad, the POTUS gets the blame even if he is not responsible, and if it is good he gets credit he probably does not deserve.
If you are POTUS, you are sore of responsible for everything that happens on your watch..
 
zorro99 said:
New York
CNN
—
Stocks rose Friday morning as Wall Street cheered a signal from Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell that long-awaited interest rate cuts are finally coming.

The Dow rose 253 points, or 0.6%, after jumping more than 400 points earlier in the day. The S&P 500 gained 0.6% and the Nasdaq Composite added 0.8%. All three major indexes are on pace to end the week higher.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/23/investing/stocks-powell-jackson-hole/index.html

That’s great!
Click to expand...

WHich sort of shoots to hell the theory we had in another thead that BIg BUsiness caused the recent inflation to try to elect Trump.
 
rdwight said:
Putting aside the fact we are already generous with loan forgiveness for borrowers that have low income, here were my thoughts on a middle ground from then.
Click to expand...

Really, how? Best I've gotten is an income-driven repayment plan with a $0 monthly rate, that's already racked up in interest at least an eighth of the total balance. I'd been doing well and paying it off, but then when I lost my job and went on a repayment plan the interest was pushed into the principal (so now interest is accumulating on a larger amount). How's that in any way generous, much less fair?
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
Really, how? Best I've gotten is an income-driven repayment plan with a $0 monthly rate, that's already racked up in interest at least an eighth of the total balance. I'd been doing well and paying it off, but then when I lost my job and went on a repayment plan the interest was pushed into the principal (so now interest is accumulating on a larger amount). How's that in any way generous, much less fair?
Click to expand...

Which specific plan? The generous part is that after 20 or 25 years, all debt if forgiven. Depending on plan and income, your payments are far lower than they would need to be, which would be why the balance is increasing. Having a set time frame of lower payments and total forgiveness is quite generous to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom