Putting student loan forgiveness to the test
Democrats’ plan looks like a short-term solution to a long-term problem
My party, against my beliefs, announced a student loan cancellation plan (“Biden cancels some student loan debt,” page A1, August 25). Inflate. My question is: What now? Will we start again in two years, four years? Instead of this unfair giveaway, Washington could use the tax code to permanently make all post-secondary education (four- and two-year college, vocational training, etc.) deductible from personal income tax. once a person starts working full time. Anyone (parents, grandparents, the individual) who pays the bill is eligible for the deduction. If someone starts a business instead of going to college, they already get business expense deductions. This approach would treat an investment in education or training in the same way. Finally, the amount of the deduction could be based on the provider’s income so that those who need help the most get the greatest benefit.
It’s scandalous how this country puts students in debt
I couldn’t disagree more with Beth Akers’ op-ed “Biden’s student debt plan is driven by politics, not economics” (Opinion, August 29). In 1974, I borrowed $10,000 from a bank to graduate from Harvard as an architect. It took me 10 years to pay it back by painting houses, cleaning factory floors and doing other manual labor to survive. At that time, about 40% of architects in Massachusetts were unemployed, which happens during times of inflation. I contributed to the wealth of the bank and Harvard University but I joined the population of the American poor. How can the United States compete with other advanced countries in the world that educate young people for free?
We all benefit when borrowers get relief
After graduating, I lived modestly. I paid my loan monthly and invested every available dollar in principal. I do not regret loan forgiveness to this generation of students and graduate students, including those who have not completed their studies and who still have to repay their student loans. This generation of education borrowers has been hit in the stomach by a more than two-year hiatus from COVID-19, and these students have not made the professional and financial progress they might have had without this catastrophe. historical society.
I realize that people who haven’t had a college education and who don’t have student debt, but who have other debt, can feel resentful. They may feel like they are paying for someone else’s debt forgiveness through their taxes. The beneficiaries of student debt forgiveness are their children’s teachers, social workers, medical providers, police officers, and many other professionals who provide the services they need. I would argue that many of these student debt forgiveness recipients are also funding this government expense through the taxes they paid. So we all pay for the cancellation of student loans. But I believe it benefits everyone.
Colleges and universities, sitting on vast endowments, should contribute more
Re “University was my chance to escape poverty. I expect to graduate with $160,000 in student loan debt. (Opinion, Aug 29): Timothy Scalona argues that paying for higher education needs what looks like a reset. He advocates that the government (I think he’s talking about taxpayers) should cancel all debt held by the federal government and reinvest in public higher education, thereby changing the commodification of education. Since the government has done such a good job managing social programs, why not? And while we’re at it, let’s take care of the international students. Why should they be treated differently?
Like many others who have worked and worked multiple jobs to pay for their education, I find this reflection hard to swallow.
However, something has to change, and although Scalona mentions in passing the exorbitant tuition fees, he fails to point out that colleges and universities are sitting on an estimated $700 billion in endowments, which together with their assets generate little or no revenue for the federal government. government or their surrounding communities. This does not include the billions in research grants that taxpayers also pay.
It is unacceptable to ignore the role that institutions should play in solving this problem. Those who have paid for an education but legitimately cannot earn enough to repay their loans deserve remission from schools in the form of loan repayment. In the future, tuition fees should be heavily subsidized by school endowments or these endowments should be taxed, and schools should adjust their tuition fees so that fees paid correlate with a student’s expected earning capacity. student after graduation.
There are many creative ways to solve this problem. Let’s give people who find a way to pay a break and put the blame where it belongs.