3 ms·

I didn’t say it was bad for them to carry debt. It’s bad for them to carry a lot of debt. Yes, it was not a great argument for spending a trillion dollars on

I didn’t say it was bad for them to carry debt. It’s bad for them to carry a lot of debt. Yes, it was not a great argument for spending a trillion dollars on student loan forgiveness. Mostly I was pointing out how out of whack the moral priorities of the U.S. are. There is very little debate or angst over spending a trillion dollars on a useless war. But somehow spending a trillion dollars on student loan forgiveness makes everyone think about moral hazard. You mentioned morality and so I took things a bit further than what you did.

tptacek 9y ago
My problem with college subsidy isn’t moral hazard; it’s that it’s regressive.
- yequalsx 9y ago
  It’s partially regressive (not all of the money to fund this would come from regressive taxes) but it’s in everyone’s interest to have an educated society that isn’t unduly debt burdened once they leave college. We all benefit from this. So forgiving this debt palatable to me. It’s why I don't mind funding k-12 education even though I don’t have kids.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    It's regressive no matter how it's funded, because the benefits are structurally determined to impact primarily families of means. The wealthy attend expensive colleges. If college tuition were free, that would remain the case.
    - yequalsx 9y ago
      I believe you are using the word 'regressive' incorrectly then. Of course, just forgiving all student loans will disproportionately help some who don't need it. But in the U.S. we've decided against universal, public higher education for those who are qualified and thus inequities will occur no matter what happens. It's disproportionately the case that the wealthy get into schools with the best connections. Those tend to be private schools. Such is what happens when a society starts down the path toward Ayn Randian utopia.
      - tptacek 9y ago
        It will disproportionately help the well-off, period; not just "some of them". The dominant distributional effect will be to shift dollars that could have been spent on services, tax relief, or debt relief for less-advantaged households to far-better-advantaged households. It's pretty simple to see why; it's the same reason why the mortgage interest deduction is regressive. I don't see how advocates for this policy can escape that logic without declaring math irrelevant. If we want to improve access to and financing of higher education in the US, we should radically expand Pell Grants, not write a 12-figure check to wealthy families.

tptacek 9y ago

My problem with college subsidy isn’t moral hazard; it’s that it’s regressive.

yequalsx 9y ago
It’s partially regressive (not all of the money to fund this would come from regressive taxes) but it’s in everyone’s interest to have an educated society that isn’t unduly debt burdened once they leave college. We all benefit from this. So forgiving this debt palatable to me. It’s why I don't mind funding k-12 education even though I don’t have kids.
- tptacek 9y ago
  It's regressive no matter how it's funded, because the benefits are structurally determined to impact primarily families of means. The wealthy attend expensive colleges. If college tuition were free, that would remain the case.
  - yequalsx 9y ago
    I believe you are using the word 'regressive' incorrectly then. Of course, just forgiving all student loans will disproportionately help some who don't need it. But in the U.S. we've decided against universal, public higher education for those who are qualified and thus inequities will occur no matter what happens. It's disproportionately the case that the wealthy get into schools with the best connections. Those tend to be private schools. Such is what happens when a society starts down the path toward Ayn Randian utopia.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      It will disproportionately help the well-off, period; not just "some of them". The dominant distributional effect will be to shift dollars that could have been spent on services, tax relief, or debt relief for less-advantaged households to far-better-advantaged households. It's pretty simple to see why; it's the same reason why the mortgage interest deduction is regressive. I don't see how advocates for this policy can escape that logic without declaring math irrelevant. If we want to improve access to and financing of higher education in the US, we should radically expand Pell Grants, not write a 12-figure check to wealthy families.