Fundamental to extortion and exploitation is that the buyer has no choice. If you are dying of thirst, someone can charge you whatever they want for water. If you have no rights (e.g., you are undocumented) and have no job prospects, someone can pay you whatever they want. You must have water, you must have the job.
What does that mean? There are many careers that be attained without a home, without literacy, without healthcare. Heck, you could be a hunter-gatherer.
And the idea that college is for career is a fallacy, a framing of the issue that suits the reactionary, don't-want-to-pay taxes crowd. Life is so much more than career; our country and communities are so much more, have so many more challenges, than careers; education benefits all of that.
(For example, reasoning about public affairs benefits from education.)
> many careers that can be attained after college that will easily pay for the loans that were taken
Could you provide evidence? I'm not sure that's the case.
Also, we need lots of people to do work that doesn't happen to pay especially well.
Also, I greatly value freedom and opportunity and believe everyone should have it, not just the wealthy.
> I don’t see why that burden should be placed in the taxpayer
What is the basis for what we do or don't want to fund collectively? As a taxpayer, I absolutely want to invest in education - for the welfare of the people being educated, for the welfare of our country and communities and the world, for my welfare. You don't have to agree, but on what basis do you make this analysis?