Thwarted by the conservative-leaning court, Biden told reporters that his administration would pursue student loan relief through a different avenue, the Higher Education Act.
I have a hard time seeing how this program is not unfair (not American so might be missing something).
My understanding is that there are 2 programs. One that helps reduce loans by 1k a year, and another one that forgives loans with less than 12k left after 10 years.
The first one seems to be ok as a measure for new students taking out loans because then it would work as a tool to encourage higher education. But as a blanket help it seems unfair as the benefitting people already made their choice and got (or are getting) their education. For the special case of people who are struggling financially I think a program that is specific to them and helps them relative to their struggle would be more appropriate, and it would surprise me if it doesn’t already exist.
As for the second program it seems to just be a gift to people who have already made their choice and completed their education, and is not fair at all to people who have consciously chosen to not pursue this because they couldn’t afford the debt. If someone is financially struggling see my previous point about more appropriate tools to help them, otherwise if they’re not struggling then what is the point of this?
Furthermore the second program also seems to be a one-off? I’m not sure here so please correct me if I’m wrong. If that is the case then it doesn’t even encourage people to pursue higher education.
Why does it need to be fair? By that logic, we should never change a ton of things, such as tax codes, simply because they’re not retroactive (“how dare the government offer a rebate on solar panels after I’ve already paid full price!”). There isn’t really a good way to make something like student loan forgiveness retroactive and to try and do so would make it excessively expensive.
Why should we hold back on doing a good thing just because it doesn’t help 100% of people ever?
I do agree with you about the core of what you’re saying, that in the end it’s a good thing to help people. For sure. But when talking about public funds you have to keep in mind priorities. In this case I can see how this doesn’t seem like a priority to some people, money is not unlimited and these funds could be used for something else. I would personally be more on board if this program targeted students who are about to get loans, I just think it would have more value to society in general than helping someone who is 10 years into their loan and not struggling financially.
Now as I said I’m not an expert on US public finance so if you tell me that these funds couldn’t be used somewhere else anyway and would be wasted in less important projects then sure I’d revise my opinion.
I have a hard time seeing how this program is not unfair (not American so might be missing something).
My understanding is that there are 2 programs. One that helps reduce loans by 1k a year, and another one that forgives loans with less than 12k left after 10 years.
The first one seems to be ok as a measure for new students taking out loans because then it would work as a tool to encourage higher education. But as a blanket help it seems unfair as the benefitting people already made their choice and got (or are getting) their education. For the special case of people who are struggling financially I think a program that is specific to them and helps them relative to their struggle would be more appropriate, and it would surprise me if it doesn’t already exist.
As for the second program it seems to just be a gift to people who have already made their choice and completed their education, and is not fair at all to people who have consciously chosen to not pursue this because they couldn’t afford the debt. If someone is financially struggling see my previous point about more appropriate tools to help them, otherwise if they’re not struggling then what is the point of this?
Furthermore the second program also seems to be a one-off? I’m not sure here so please correct me if I’m wrong. If that is the case then it doesn’t even encourage people to pursue higher education.
Why does it need to be fair? By that logic, we should never change a ton of things, such as tax codes, simply because they’re not retroactive (“how dare the government offer a rebate on solar panels after I’ve already paid full price!”). There isn’t really a good way to make something like student loan forgiveness retroactive and to try and do so would make it excessively expensive.
Why should we hold back on doing a good thing just because it doesn’t help 100% of people ever?
I do agree with you about the core of what you’re saying, that in the end it’s a good thing to help people. For sure. But when talking about public funds you have to keep in mind priorities. In this case I can see how this doesn’t seem like a priority to some people, money is not unlimited and these funds could be used for something else. I would personally be more on board if this program targeted students who are about to get loans, I just think it would have more value to society in general than helping someone who is 10 years into their loan and not struggling financially.
Now as I said I’m not an expert on US public finance so if you tell me that these funds couldn’t be used somewhere else anyway and would be wasted in less important projects then sure I’d revise my opinion.