If this happens, do I get benefits on the debt I've already paid off? I would be pretty pissed if I didn't. I worked my ass off to pay my loans.
That's not going to happen because it's politically easier to continue to subsidize failure than to draw the line on this bullshit and reward sensible hard working people like you.
“The only time you look in your neighbor's bowl is to make sure that they have enough. You don't look in your neighbor's bowl to see if you have as much as them.”
I'm almost done paying off my student loans, and because of that, I don't want anyone else to have to endure paying for student loans, even if I myself don't get the benefit.
Stop whistling past the grave yard. That is how government works. They have guns, and prefer that you don't, just in case you get all argumentative and pouty.
At least where I'm from, no you won't. Your debt to the state will grow and eventually they'll try to repossess it (through e.g. wage garnishing). They can't arrest you for not paying taxes.
What happens if you go up and steal someone's car?
The same thing that happens if you break any other law.
"What if you resist arrest?"
The same thing that happens if you break any other law.
"Eventually, someone will deploy state-sanctioned violence in this situation."
And you get no sympathy from me, because in this case, you clearly broke the law.
That's bullshit. In reality OP proposes to transfer money from me to people who made investments in human capital that didn't pan out.
Maybe that's their fault, because they invested foolishly. Maybe it's nobody's fault, because they invested in a positive-expectation bet and got bit by the variance (it does suck when you take out a loan to go to nursing school, and the feds decide to import a bunch of Filipino nurses instead). Maybe they were the victim of fraud, and someone sold them a bill of goods.
In any case, it has nothing to do with me.
Rather more direct when they're taking my money to do so. This isn't an abstract "ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee" scenario, and the alternative is not personal autarky. OP is proposing a direct transfer, from me to a stranger, to which I am opposed, and therefore one which must be imposed by force. The alternative is not imposing such a transfer. Cut a check yourself if you think it's a good idea. Bullshit about the universal brotherhood of man and unity of the volk does not excuse arbitrary impositions.
...but don't get salty because the debt won't vanish. I have no doubt that if an education loan is forgiven, it WILL affect that persons credit rating. Much like when a debt is forgiven/charged-off. Also, charge-offs are typically treated as a form of taxable income... so these people will pay one way or the other, and likely take a long-time credit rating hit.
That's not much consolation. I wouldn't be happy if the government decided to simply pay people for making poor financial decisions, even if we recovered x% of those payments through taxes.
I'd still be paying for it with my massively higher taxes.
Just get the government out of the student loan industry. Let the market signal which degrees are valuable and allow students to discharge through bankruptcy (but ruin their credit).
Government already does that in a myriad of ways, some more morally accepted than others. It's almost part of the base definition of what we expect the government to do, if you really think about it. Paying for the poor that made bad life decisions and lost their job, the sick that didn't save for medical expenditure, the parent that had one-too-many kids and can't pay for their food/schooling, etc.
I would argue they are all very similar, buffering and protecting those that are incapable of providing for themselves, either by inability or conscious inaction/abuse. It's just that some people think this should be done by private efforts, instead of by government which uses it's power to force people to obey and pay.
There's simply no way that you will want to forgive the student debt... so pay them off if you can! The punishments of 'forgiveness' simply have to outweigh the benefits or the system will be gamed until broken.
"I had to do <thing that sucks>, therefore everybody has to do <thing that sucks>" isn't a great argument, but "you had to do <think that sucks>, but I don't want to so I'm going to make you do <other thing that sucks> so I don't have to" is even worse. It's like forcing someone who just finally managed to rebuild their house after it burned down to share their house with another fire victim for free.
The selfish thinking that people shouldn't get anything for "free" (ie, shifting education burden from taxes to the student) and everyone should be accountable for every dollar is how we got here.
If I just finished paying off my student loans, and debt forgiveness happened, I would be annoyed and a bit jealous. But also happy that those who had their debt forgiven now have more money to do stuff and contribute to the economy. I would truly be happy for them. Why wouldn't I?
(Note: I don't believe debt forgiveness will ever happen)
Why, though? Depending on how the idea of debt relief shakes out, this might be one of those "sometimes life is unfair" moments that you just have to accept and move on as part of living in a society. The alternative is a massive contraction in buying power, which could certainly directly impact your livelihood. Is the spite worth that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
Struggle can also cause bankruptcy, violence, and misery.
Yes, people should decide how much debt they want to take on.
There are vast differences in the value of different degrees (cost and earnings). It's people's responsibility to educate themselves. The rest of us shouldn't have to subsidize someone's terrible decision to go into debt for a degree in basket-weaving.
If you're old enough to drive a car, join the army, or be charged as an adult, you're old enough to realize that paying tens of thousands of dollars for a degree in musical theater isn't a great idea.
It's not rocket science. There are tons of resources online to help you figure out which degrees and schools are good value.
And how many finance courses would they have taken during high school?
Sorry, I have to laugh. This is the most HN thing I've read today. It's a tremendous privilege to have the option of quitting your job to travel the world, rather than the fear of being arbitrarily laid off, and failing to put food on the table or lose your house. My redneck might be sticking out this morning, though.
I have moved around the country for work quite a bit, so I do feel fairly well-traveled. At least in the continental US.
Edit: If you are supporting children, the above advice may not apply.
Thank you for recognizing that.
At least colloquially, this term signifies one has been to other countries (or better, other continents) and visited other cultures, immersed in other languages, other governments, other ways of eating, etc. One who stays within a country would not (in my opinion) be "well-traveled", despite the country being enormous. My 2cents.
I define well-traveled as someone who has traveled a significant distance based on their circumstances in life. By your definition a large portion of the people living in the EU are well-traveled just living their normal lives. Which is a far easier thing to accomplish than someone in the US. I have driven from Orlando FL to Las Vegas NV, a distance of around 2300 miles or so, twice. How many countries does that cover for that range in the EU? I have visited many locations around both cities and in-between. I have lived in four states in different areas of the country, each with their varying cultures. I can tell you for a fact that the Southeast and Southwest US do have different cultures, even though they both sort of speak the same language. Walking through downtown Los Angeles after growing up in small town Alabama is visiting a different culture.
Just my 2 cents.
I agree, there is a kind of snobby adherence to the term by some people, as they see the point of becoming "well-traveled" to have been able to afford it.
I politely disagree that the term -- or idea it was meant to abstract -- is to convey how much distance one has traveled, but rather how varied the places have been that one has lived in. Just a short quick visit, e.g. a many-hundred-mile 2-week scourge through Europe, robs you of the experience of living in a non-tourist area where the environment is nothing like what you are accustomed to.
The idea (phrased as "well-traveled" or otherwise) from my perspective is to learn that many countries have very different ways of life; some have better/free access to health care, or not at all; some have almost no diverse ethnicities (e.g. China), or that in the middle-east, you can have countries with a strong diverse mix of many religions (Lebanon); how foreign country governments treat you (no VISA, vs. register yourself with police everywhere); etc.
For those with hard lives, many can be some of the nicest people. Visit China, other south-east Asian countries, rural India, Africa, as well as the well-developed nations in Europe. The most important trait one should take away from travel is: first-hand experience at the range of life that exists on this planet, something which cannot be read from a book.
We take for granted many of the artifacts and ways we work in our lives; seeing others gives us perspective that becomes a useful skill. I wholeheartedly agree that these skills can be developed without leaving the country, among our own rich, poor; and we are fortunate to have all four climates within our borders, too!
Not having an emergency fund is about the riskiest thing you can do.
> If you owe $2k every month to NelNet or another institution, it's much harder emotionally and financially to quit your job to travel the world or start your own company.
The emergency fund helps with that. When built up, it should cover 6-12 months of zero income. Amassing it first means losing a job doesn't mean deferring payments on the student loans and winding up with years more payments to make as a result.
> We had Federal Loans and the interest rate was still 6.5%
One of my wife's student loans is at 2.5%. At 6.5%, it's not below inflation and paying it off makes more sense.
But sometime emotions get in the way of financial strategy.
It's also worth noting that 2.5% is still higher than inflation in the last couple years.
Actually, probably not. That's part of it, but if student loan debts are forgiven, the banks aren't going to eat all of that cost - the government is going to step in and help recoup some of that cost. So not only did I have to pay for my own college education, I'll be taxed to help pay for thousands of others, as well.
Of course it will. That's money which the government loses.
I pay tens of thousands in taxes every year.