3 ms·

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

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

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.