Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,130
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Aug 26, 2022 19:57:28 GMT -5
Plus Nancy Pelosi said loan forgiveness can only be done by congress? Changed her opinion? lol, we all know politicians hate to use loopholes!
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,070
|
Post by teen persuasion on Aug 26, 2022 22:18:42 GMT -5
Interesting details that I hadn't heard yet Verify thisApparently both parents and students are eligible for forgiveness if Parent Plus loans are involved. And you can get refunds if you made payments during the payment pause. Graduate school loans are included.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,200
|
Post by Ava on Sept 1, 2022 11:19:20 GMT -5
After letting it all sink in, I have to say;
- I'm grateful for the 10k forgiveness I'm about to receive -It doesn't change things too much for me. I'm guessing the money will be allocated proportionally between graduate and undergraduate loans. -If I qualify for the new undergraduate payment plan, my undergraduate loans should be gone soon, because I've had them since 2012 and I've never been delinquent -If we go back to payments in January, I am saying goodbye to the few pampering expenses I got in my life after living extremely frugally for forever. I will fight with nails and teeth to continue to max out retirement accounts, though.
Overall, I'm underwhelmed. I've read a couple of articles that said in 5 years student loan debt will be back to where it is today. This is a band-aid solution. I'm glad for the millions of people who will get their debt wiped clean with this forgiveness. But for many millions, if they are on IBR, this doesn't change anything. Not to mention those coming behind who'll be faced with the same issue soon.
Why not tackle the price of education in state schools? Why not lower the interest on the loans and they way it's calculated?
|
|
|
Post by minnesotapaintlady on Sept 1, 2022 11:40:10 GMT -5
After letting it all sink in, I have to say; - I'm grateful for the 10k forgiveness I'm about to receive -It doesn't change things too much for me. I'm guessing the money will be allocated proportionally between graduate and undergraduate loans. -If I qualify for the new undergraduate payment plan, my undergraduate loans should be gone soon, because I've had them since 2012 and I've never been delinquent -If we go back to payments in January, I am saying goodbye to the few pampering expenses I got in my life after living extremely frugally for forever. I will fight with nails and teeth to continue to max out retirement accounts, though. Overall, I'm underwhelmed. I've read a couple of articles that said in 5 years student loan debt will be back to where it is today. This is a band-aid solution. I'm glad for the millions of people who will get their debt wiped clean with this forgiveness. But for many millions, if they are on IBR, this doesn't change anything. Not to mention those coming behind who'll be faced with the same issue soon. Why not tackle the price of education in state schools? Why not lower the interest on the loans and they way it's calculated? I would think the new plan to restructure student loans and make it so that negative amortization is no longer possible would be huge for future borrowers?
|
|
jerseygirl
Senior Member
Joined: May 13, 2018 7:43:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,906
|
Post by jerseygirl on Sept 1, 2022 12:00:01 GMT -5
But by changing repaymentsthis does NOTHING to minimize the underlying problem of tuition increasing above inflation.
Just a lot of shiny things to get votes Bread and circuses! And don’t bother trying to make this political- both parties are involved
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,200
|
Post by Ava on Sept 1, 2022 12:00:43 GMT -5
It would. But it's just an idea right now. Nothing concrete. It may take months, up to a year to implement. Again, underwhelmed after all the time they had to figure it out. Besides, it's only for undergraduate loans. Many professional fields require graduate degrees now.
|
|
|
Post by minnesotapaintlady on Sept 1, 2022 12:16:05 GMT -5
But by changing repaymentsthis does NOTHING to minimize the underlying problem of tuition increasing above inflation. Just a lot of shiny things to get votes Bread and circuses! And don’t bother trying to make this political- both parties are involved Um...I think you were the one that made this political with the buying votes comment. Everyone talks about the skyrocketing tuition, but I think this is location dependent to a degree. When I look at historical rates it seems like the 80's and 90's were bad and then it cooled off. This is the tuition and inflation rate for our flagships tuition the last 14 years. Lots of years it didn't change at all. Now, of course this doesn't include housing and rent prices have probably increased a lot more than this during that time, so the room and board aspect would be higher.
09-10 $10,320 7.50% 10-11 $11,094 7.50% 11-12 $11,650 5.00% 12-13 $12,060 3.50% 13-14 $12,060 0.00% 14-15 $12,060 0.00% 15-16 $12,240 1.50% 16-17 $12,546 2.50% 17-18 $12,800 2.00% 18-19 $13,058 2.00% 19-20 $13,318 2.00% 20-21 $13,318 0.00% 21-22 $13,532 1.60% 22-23 $14,006 3.50%
|
|
alabamagal
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 11:30:29 GMT -5
Posts: 8,126
|
Post by alabamagal on Sept 1, 2022 12:32:25 GMT -5
So following the link above, with parent loans included, I will get $10k and my DH will get $10k off loans. The somewhat arbitrary decision to put one set of loans in my name and one in DH, gets us $10k more.
The Pell grant qualification is also a bit arbitrary. I had 3 kids close in age. The oldest never got Pell (I don’t think), but the 2nd and 3rd kid did because they were in college at same time, so EFC was split.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,451
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Sept 1, 2022 12:44:54 GMT -5
But by changing repaymentsthis does NOTHING to minimize the underlying problem of tuition increasing above inflation. Just a lot of shiny things to get votes Bread and circuses! And don’t bother trying to make this political- both parties are involved State schools are funded by the taxpayer. Which party has been the anti-tax party? Less revenue to the state, cuts need to be done somewhere. As we see, plenty of people are against giving a break to those who go to college, so costs go up. If schools were supported as they were in the 70s, state schools would be much cheaper. It is political. Not to be repetitious, but when congress reauthorized the loan program(when republicans were in charge) they doubled the interest rates on loans, going from 3.4 to 6.8? Do you think that was wrong?
|
|
jerseygirl
Senior Member
Joined: May 13, 2018 7:43:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,906
|
Post by jerseygirl on Sept 1, 2022 13:37:37 GMT -5
Yes doubling the student loan interest rate was wrong. Also federal took over loans and Obama said government would make money - didn’t
With zero interest for years leaving student loan rates high was abusive MPL seems to have a well run state college system
Private univ college tuition increased dramatically and loans increased. In spite of more adjunct poorly paid instructors (both public and private), are private colleges spending more of their (sometimes) huge endowments??
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,451
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Sept 1, 2022 13:50:48 GMT -5
Nothing about the anti tax sentiment of republicans leading to less state funding and the resultant increase in tuition?
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,933
|
Post by haapai on Sept 1, 2022 13:52:56 GMT -5
But by changing repaymentsthis does NOTHING to minimize the underlying problem of tuition increasing above inflation. Just a lot of shiny things to get votes Bread and circuses! And don’t bother trying to make this political- both parties are involved State schools are funded by the taxpayer. Which party has been the anti-tax party? Less revenue to the state, cuts need to be done somewhere. As we see, plenty of people are against giving a break to those who go to college, so costs go up. If schools were supported as they were in the 70s, state schools would be much cheaper. It is political. Not to be repetitious, but when congress reauthorized the loan program(when republicans were in charge) they doubled the interest rates on loans, going from 3.4 to 6.8? Do you think that was wrong? The interest rate only matters if you are paying it. The new IDR program, which may or may not take effect, pretty much makes the interest rate moot for a lot of school-leavers, for many years.
A single person with no dependents and an AGI of $35K and enrolled in the new IDR program would be compelled to make payments of $250 a year (or $20.84 a month or $21 if they round) no matter what their federal student loan balance was. Since unpaid interest will no longer capitalize, this amounts to a huge subsidy, at least in the early years, and if you manage to keep your AGI down. You may owe some taxes on the cancellation at the end, but you should be able to save up that much, especially since your balance should not grow unless you are careless about your income certification.
5% of AGI over $30K ain't much at all. At least in flyover country, where you can survive on much less than $30K a year of AGI and shovel much of the rest into HSAs and traditional IRAs and Roths. At my longitude, this looks like an incredible subsidy.
|
|
jerseygirl
Senior Member
Joined: May 13, 2018 7:43:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,906
|
Post by jerseygirl on Sept 1, 2022 14:08:20 GMT -5
Nothing about the anti tax sentiment of republicans leading to less state funding and the resultant increase in tuition? What??? You think I need to respond to your every comment?? Or justify political actions??
|
|
saveinla
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 2:00:29 GMT -5
Posts: 5,253
|
Post by saveinla on Sept 1, 2022 15:50:37 GMT -5
State schools are funded by the taxpayer. Which party has been the anti-tax party? Less revenue to the state, cuts need to be done somewhere. As we see, plenty of people are against giving a break to those who go to college, so costs go up. If schools were supported as they were in the 70s, state schools would be much cheaper. It is political. Not to be repetitious, but when congress reauthorized the loan program(when republicans were in charge) they doubled the interest rates on loans, going from 3.4 to 6.8? Do you think that was wrong? The interest rate only matters if you are paying it. The new IDR program, which may or may not take effect, pretty much makes the interest rate moot for a lot of school-leavers, for many years.
A single person with no dependents and an AGI of $35K and enrolled in the new IDR program would be compelled to make payments of $250 a year (or $20.84 a month or $21 if they round) no matter what their federal student loan balance was. Since unpaid interest will no longer capitalize, this amounts to a huge subsidy, at least in the early years, and if you manage to keep your AGI down. You may owe some taxes on the cancellation at the end, but you should be able to save up that much, especially since your balance should not grow unless you are careless about your income certification.
5% of AGI over $30K ain't much at all. At least in flyover country, where you can survive on much less than $30K a year of AGI and shovel much of the rest into HSAs and traditional IRAs and Roths. At my longitude, this looks like an incredible subsidy.
Not for those of us who paid off the Parent plus loans at this interest rate. We waited to invest in the Roth and other investment until the loans were paid off, so the interest rate does matter to people who pay.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,933
|
Post by haapai on Sept 1, 2022 17:08:56 GMT -5
The interest rate only matters if you are paying it. The new IDR program, which may or may not take effect, pretty much makes the interest rate moot for a lot of school-leavers, for many years.
A single person with no dependents and an AGI of $35K and enrolled in the new IDR program would be compelled to make payments of $250 a year (or $20.84 a month or $21 if they round) no matter what their federal student loan balance was. Since unpaid interest will no longer capitalize, this amounts to a huge subsidy, at least in the early years, and if you manage to keep your AGI down. You may owe some taxes on the cancellation at the end, but you should be able to save up that much, especially since your balance should not grow unless you are careless about your income certification.
5% of AGI over $30K ain't much at all. At least in flyover country, where you can survive on much less than $30K a year of AGI and shovel much of the rest into HSAs and traditional IRAs and Roths. At my longitude, this looks like an incredible subsidy.
Not for those of us who paid off the Parent plus loans at this interest rate. We waited to invest in the Roth and other investment until the loans were paid off, so the interest rate does matter to people who pay. I'm trying to be as mild and apolitical as possible. I'm just trying to direct some attention to the mechanics of the "new IDR program" would work as proposed.
I stand by my assertion that for many people, the "new IDR" that almost everyone will qualify for, at least for a few years, is amazingly generous compared to its predecessors. It will result in the monthly forgiveness of interest that would otherwise capitalize or threaten to capitalize. I'm also standing by my assertion that the putative interest rate stops mattering for many folks when negative amortization is pretty much eliminated as long as you jump through the right hoops.
I don't know whether those hoops that people have to jump through, consistently, for ten to twenty years will be easy to hop through. It chills me to think of how easily a borrower who has successfully re-certified income for five, ten, or fifteen years can be cast into the "non-compliant" zone and threatened with financial penalties that empty their bowels and force them to make semi-voluntary payments on their federal student loans that are a few multiples beyond what the program that they signed up for, and are trying to comply with, require.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,451
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Sept 1, 2022 18:01:12 GMT -5
Nothing about the anti tax sentiment of republicans leading to less state funding and the resultant increase in tuition? What??? You think I need to respond to your every comment?? Or justify political actions?? No, you try to sound reasonable but ignore what the anti tax philosophy of the Republican Party has led to. We should be investing in people so that we maintain out technologic advantage, which is shrinking. Helping people become educated is one of those things. Not to mention our failing infrastructure which also are requires investment
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,008
|
Post by bean29 on Sept 1, 2022 18:34:36 GMT -5
I have a parent plus loan in my name. Am I eligible for $10,000 relief or $20,000 cause I am married?
|
|
|
Post by minnesotapaintlady on Sept 1, 2022 18:44:19 GMT -5
I have a parent plus loan in my name. Am I eligible for $10,000 relief or $20,000 cause I am married? It's per borrower, so it would be 10K if you meet the income limit which is like 240K or something for married.
|
|
alabamagal
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 11:30:29 GMT -5
Posts: 8,126
|
Post by alabamagal on Sept 1, 2022 20:43:43 GMT -5
I have a parent plus loan in my name. Am I eligible for $10,000 relief or $20,000 cause I am married? It's per borrower, so it would be 10K if you meet the income limit which is like 240K or something for married. That is how I understand it, per borrower. For us, I happened to put parent loan for one kid in my name and second kids in husbands name. Don’t really know why, somewhat random since all our finances are combined. But looks like a good decision now. I thought it would be a limit per student, but looks like it is per borrower.
|
|
jerseygirl
Senior Member
Joined: May 13, 2018 7:43:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,906
|
Post by jerseygirl on Sept 1, 2022 21:24:39 GMT -5
What??? You think I need to respond to your every comment?? Or justify political actions?? No, you try to sound reasonable but ignore what the anti tax philosophy of the Republican Party has led to. We should be investing in people so that we maintain out technologic advantage, which is shrinking. Helping people become educated is one of those things. Not to mention our failing infrastructure which also are requires investment Guess my response was too nuanced for you I responded about public college by noting MPL has a well run state college system. And the rising costs of college are not just the state colleges but private colleges
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 27,453
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Sept 1, 2022 21:42:33 GMT -5
DN1 said because of the Pell grants, he will get $20000 in forgiveness. He didn't take out any loans for his master's or PhD as he worked at the college enough to pay tuition and worked in crap jobs all summer to pay for cheap apartments and food.
His wife has no loans as did bachelor's, master's and PhD on full scholarship.
He was relieved to know so they can figure out about buying something in downtown Toronto where it will be at least $1 million to get anything decent.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,451
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Sept 2, 2022 7:11:13 GMT -5
No, you try to sound reasonable but ignore what the anti tax philosophy of the Republican Party has led to. We should be investing in people so that we maintain out technologic advantage, which is shrinking. Helping people become educated is one of those things. Not to mention our failing infrastructure which also are requires investment Guess my response was too nuanced for you I responded about public college by noting MPL has a well run state college system. And the rising costs of college are not just the state colleges but private colleges I understood perfectly. What you continue to gloss over is that state government controls state colleges if keeping tuition costs in check was a priority, they could do it by increasing the level of support to the level it was on past. Instead, they have cut support, leading to tuition hikes and program cutbacks. Many students need 5-6 years to complete their education because required classes are so limited. So, ensuring adequate funding would go a long way to fixing this. But taxpayers would prefer tax cuts. Government has less control over private school tuition. But, conservatives believe in competition. If you make public schools more reasonable, private schools would be pressured to keep tuition increases in check. That would at least start to restrain tuition hikes
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,350
|
Post by scgal on Sept 2, 2022 12:16:23 GMT -5
Guess my response was too nuanced for you I responded about public college by noting MPL has a well run state college system. And the rising costs of college are not just the state colleges but private colleges I understood perfectly. What you continue to gloss over is that state government controls state colleges if keeping tuition costs in check was a priority, they could do it by increasing the level of support to the level it was on past. Instead, they have cut support, leading to tuition hikes and program cutbacks. Many students need 5-6 years to complete their education because required classes are so limited. So, ensuring adequate funding would go a long way to fixing this. But taxpayers would prefer tax cuts. Government has less control over private school tuition. But, conservatives believe in competition. If you make public schools more reasonable, private schools would be pressured to keep tuition increases in check. That would at least start to restrain tuition hikes The taxpayers are already taxed to death. So increasing taxes is ok to fund colleges and not expecting a person to pay for "Their" education is ok?
|
|
Knee Deep in Water Chloe
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 21:04:44 GMT -5
Posts: 14,004
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1980e6
Member is Online
|
Post by Knee Deep in Water Chloe on Sept 2, 2022 12:23:11 GMT -5
I understood perfectly. What you continue to gloss over is that state government controls state colleges if keeping tuition costs in check was a priority, they could do it by increasing the level of support to the level it was on past. Instead, they have cut support, leading to tuition hikes and program cutbacks. Many students need 5-6 years to complete their education because required classes are so limited. So, ensuring adequate funding would go a long way to fixing this. But taxpayers would prefer tax cuts. Government has less control over private school tuition. But, conservatives believe in competition. If you make public schools more reasonable, private schools would be pressured to keep tuition increases in check. That would at least start to restrain tuition hikes The taxpayers are already taxed to death. So increasing taxes is ok to fund colleges and not expecting a person to pay for "Their" education is ok? But by that premise, aren't I paying twice if not three times? I paid the tuition back on the loans. I paid interest on the loans. I pay taxes--a lot of taxes because I make more money because I completed a few degrees all at public colleges.
So, should my tax bill be reduced because I did pay the tuition? I'm really not arguing, I'm trying to understand the logic behind the taxes for a public university vs. paying tuition (all to do a job that is funded by the government for a service that is compulsory for all US children ages 6 - 16.)
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,350
|
Post by scgal on Sept 2, 2022 12:28:23 GMT -5
The taxpayers are already taxed to death. So increasing taxes is ok to fund colleges and not expecting a person to pay for "Their" education is ok? But by that premise, aren't I paying twice if not three times? I paid the tuition back on the loans. I paid interest on the loans. I pay taxes--a lot of taxes because I make more money because I completed a few degrees all at public colleges.
So, should my tax bill be reduced because I did pay the tuition? I'm really not arguing, I'm trying to understand the logic behind the taxes for a public university vs. paying tuition (all to do a job that is funded by the government for a service that is compulsory for all US children ages 6 - 16.)
Exactly my point. You paid for yours and you are taxed. Why should you have to have your taxes raised so somone don't have to pay for their own future? As far as the rest that is up to you your career your income, income sources etc.
|
|
jerseygirl
Senior Member
Joined: May 13, 2018 7:43:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,906
|
Post by jerseygirl on Sept 2, 2022 12:38:33 GMT -5
Guess my response was too nuanced for you I responded about public college by noting MPL has a well run state college system. And the rising costs of college are not just the state colleges but private colleges I understood perfectly. What you continue to gloss over is that state government controls state colleges if keeping tuition costs in check was a priority, they could do it by increasing the level of support to the level it was on past. Instead, they have cut support, leading to tuition hikes and program cutbacks. Many students need 5-6 years to complete their education because required classes are so limited. So, ensuring adequate funding would go a long way to fixing this. But taxpayers would prefer tax cuts. Government has less control over private school tuition. But, conservatives believe in competition. If you make public schools more reasonable, private schools would be pressured to keep tuition increases in check. That would at least start to restrain tuition hikes So your premise is republicans opposition to taxes is the bete noir of increasing state and private tuitions? How do the very democratic states, eg, NY and California tuition at state and private colleges compare to republican state and private colleges?? Similar?? Lower? Higher than rates of inflation?? My unease about the recent student loan forgiveness and changes for future is that there is no attempt to address the underlying cause of rapidly increasing college costs and need for continuing loans But your premise seems to be republicans dislike of taxes is the rationale for increased costs, not the easy availability of loans stimulating rising costs
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,200
|
Post by Ava on Sept 2, 2022 13:34:24 GMT -5
Here's my take on the student loan mess.
The world has changed. It used to be that you could get a good job with a high school education. Not anymore. There's more technology now, and there's a huge need for highly educated workers.
Yes, we should encourage people towards the trades. But not everyone has the physical ability or the desire to work the trades. Joining the military is not for everyone, plus there's not enough positions. The military doesn't even accept all applicants.
I see affordable public education as a greater good. We need engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc. If we don't have them, we'll fall behind other nations. We need an even more educated workforce.
I don't understand why so many people oppose funding public community colleges and universities through taxes.
Private institutions are a different matter.
The cost of an education is outrageous, and the crazy and unfair repayment system is to be suffered by working and middle class people who don't have a family with enough resources to pay for their education.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,451
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Sept 2, 2022 13:43:09 GMT -5
I understood perfectly. What you continue to gloss over is that state government controls state colleges if keeping tuition costs in check was a priority, they could do it by increasing the level of support to the level it was on past. Instead, they have cut support, leading to tuition hikes and program cutbacks. Many students need 5-6 years to complete their education because required classes are so limited. So, ensuring adequate funding would go a long way to fixing this. But taxpayers would prefer tax cuts. Government has less control over private school tuition. But, conservatives believe in competition. If you make public schools more reasonable, private schools would be pressured to keep tuition increases in check. That would at least start to restrain tuition hikes So your premise is republicans opposition to taxes is the bete noir of increasing state and private tuitions? How do the very democratic states, eg, NY and California tuition at state and private colleges compare to republican state and private colleges?? Similar?? Lower? Higher than rates of inflation?? My unease about the recent student loan forgiveness and changes for future is that there is no attempt to address the underlying cause of rapidly increasing college costs and need for continuing loans But your premise seems to be republicans dislike of taxes is the rationale for increased costs, not the easy availability of loans stimulating rising costs It is a complicated problem. The easy availability of loans allows private schools to raise their tuition with impunity. If states supported their schools the way the did in the past, the need for these loans would be lessened, and would put pressure on private schools. By not keeping tuition down, they have contributed to the problem. Are you seriously suggesting that anti tax republicans and the resultant policies plays no role in this problem? Private schools can do what they wish. Do you think their tuition would be as high if they had to compete will low or no cost schools?
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,451
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Sept 2, 2022 13:48:14 GMT -5
I understood perfectly. What you continue to gloss over is that state government controls state colleges if keeping tuition costs in check was a priority, they could do it by increasing the level of support to the level it was on past. Instead, they have cut support, leading to tuition hikes and program cutbacks. Many students need 5-6 years to complete their education because required classes are so limited. So, ensuring adequate funding would go a long way to fixing this. But taxpayers would prefer tax cuts. Government has less control over private school tuition. But, conservatives believe in competition. If you make public schools more reasonable, private schools would be pressured to keep tuition increases in check. That would at least start to restrain tuition hikes The taxpayers are already taxed to death. So increasing taxes is ok to fund colleges and not expecting a person to pay for "Their" education is ok? The party of no strikes again. You seem to think there is a problem with college costs, yet every solution is unacceptable to you. Talent can be found at all socioeconomic levels. Not supporting that talent, and keeping schools unaffordable will let it rot. You seem to believe “I got mine”, screw you, and pull the ladder up behind you. Your attitude is one reason why income inequality is worsening. I can pay the tuition for my children, so they will be fine. You seem to not care about others. Given your attitude, you should support making all your state schools private, and getting government out of the education business. Then they can give you a nice, fat tax cut
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,350
|
Post by scgal on Sept 2, 2022 14:01:13 GMT -5
The taxpayers are already taxed to death. So increasing taxes is ok to fund colleges and not expecting a person to pay for "Their" education is ok? The party of no strikes again. You seem to think there is a problem with college costs, yet every solution is unacceptable to you. Talent can be found at all socioeconomic levels. Not supporting that talent, and keeping schools unaffordable will let it rot. You seem to believe “I got mine”, screw you, and pull the ladder up behind you. Your attitude is one reason why income inequality is worsening. I can pay the tuition for my children, so they will be fine. You seem to not care about others. Given your attitude, you should support making all your state schools private, and getting government out of the education business. Then they can give you a nice, fat tax cut What every solution? The only one I seen was taxes. Why don't we address why college tuition out paces inflation. Why in the past 40 years it rose (I seen varying numbers) between 160-180%. What is being done about that. I didn't pay for all my children education they had to take out loans and pay them back. You are correct I think the govt should get out of the education business they just keep f-ing things us anyway
|
|