> But then this would lead us back to only wealthy kids being able to afford "the arts".

To the extent that we want to fund talented but not wealthy kids in the Arts, let's spend the money on explicit scholarships for them. Then at least it's transparent what we are paying for. Much better than funding them by having them take impossible loans funded from some slightly disguised arm of the government, which we will hound them about paying for decades, and eventually write the money off.

"Percentage of future income" sounds like a great model to me, too. IIRC this is what the Australians did? Only I would prefer for the percentage taken to be something negotiated (within limits) by a private lender, because the offers made would provide valuable information to those signing up.