4 ms·

> They will happily loan you that much and more to go college even if you are, because they know you'll just be in debt forever no matter what. They also give

> They will happily loan you that much and more to go college even if you are, because they know you'll just be in debt forever no matter what. They also give you income-based repayment programs and forbearance if you lose your job. I have never seen similar programs for car loans, or credit cards, or rent, or mortgages.

imgabe 6y ago
Of course they do, they want you to keep racking up fees and interest so you end up paying even more. You'll pay until you're dead. They don't have programs like this for other loans because they don't need them. If they look at your finances when you apply for a mortgage and think you'll need an income-based program, they don't loan you the money. If something happens and you can't pay, they can repossess your car or foreclose on your house to get some of their money back that way. For unsecured debt, even if they don't have special programs, you can usually negotiate a settlement if you can't pay the whole thing. They'd rather get something than nothing. And again, you can discharge it in bankruptcy, so that gives them some incentive to work with you. For rent, there are income-based rent assistance programs in every city I'm familiar with, not sure how it is where you are. We wouldn't need these programs for student debt if you could declare bankruptcy and have the loan discharged that way. It wouldn't be something you would do lightly, but the threat of the possibility would incentivize the banks to make sure that paying the loan is less of a burden than declaring bankruptcy.
- twblalock 6y ago
  > We wouldn't need these programs for student debt if you could declare bankruptcy and have the loan discharged that way. Ok, then only rich people get to go to college. Student loans cannot be discharged because they are not risk based. If they were risk-based, the only people who could qualify for them wouldn't need them anyway. 18-year-olds don't have credit history, and most of them don't have income either. You seem pretty hurt about voluntary loans that have really, really good repayment programs -- better than any other kinds of loans that exist. Why shouldn't people be able to borrow to go to college under those terms? Keep in in mind that they have no other options, and they cannot escape into an ideal world where college is free, and they cannot legally force their parents to give them money. For a lot of people, this is a fantastic deal and it's the only way they will ever go to college.
  - imgabe 6y ago
    Of course they're risk based. It's just that all the risk is borne by the borrower, not the lender. Take out a bunch of loans and can't get a job? Too bad! You still have to pay your loans anyway. Your risk didn't work out. > 18-year-olds don't have credit history, and most of them don't have income either. Yes, this is exactly why in every other normal circumstance, lending them money is a bad idea. College used to be something where you could reasonably pay tuition with a decent summer job. If there is not an infinite supply of money to pay tuition, tuition will have to be lower. This will make it more accessible, not less.
    - twblalock 6y ago
      > College used to be something where you could reasonably pay tuition with a decent summer job. That was only true for a few decades in the late 20th century, due to massive state subsidies covered by taxpayers, many of whom did not get to go to college themselves. I guarantee you that college will not get cheaper if the student loan money dries up. The only thing that will change, is that only rich kids will get to go to college. Even public schools are building luxury student housing on campus. They aren't going to cut back, because they will always have enough rich kids and foreign students to cover the cost of running the place. In-state students are not who pay the bills. We don't live in a socialist country. If we hope for a utopia we will only lock non-rich kids out of college. If you want normal people to be able to afford college, they need access to loans, which fortunately have flexible terms and, again, amount to about the cost of a new car. It's hardly a dystopia. It's a realistic accomodation to a capitalist society, and a college loan is one of the least burdensome loans those students will undertake in their lives.
      - imgabe 6y ago
        And taking on massive student loan debt (also government subsidized) that you spend the majority of your adult lifetime paying off is only true for a few decades at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st century. I don't know why you're married to this concept as the end-all, be-all only option for education financing, especially when there is an endless flood of people saying how it personally harmed them. There are absolutely not enough foreign students to keep shoring up US universities. Many mid and lower tier schools are already experiencing cash flow problems. Many should and probably will close. There's no law of nature that demands you have to spend $40k a year to have someone tell you what Hamlet is about just so you can be qualified to come up with a new marketing campaign for a soft drink or whatever you end up doing. Most jobs don't require anything you learn in college, so why are we forcing kids into a lifetime of indentured servitude just so they can get a degree?

imgabe 6y ago

Of course they do, they want you to keep racking up fees and interest so you end up paying even more. You'll pay until you're dead. They don't have programs like this for other loans because they don't need them. If they look at your finances when you apply for a mortgage and think you'll need an income-based program, they don't loan you the money. If something happens and you can't pay, they can repossess your car or foreclose on your house to get some of their money back that way. For unsecured debt, even if they don't have special programs, you can usually negotiate a settlement if you can't pay the whole thing. They'd rather get something than nothing. And again, you can discharge it in bankruptcy, so that gives them some incentive to work with you. For rent, there are income-based rent assistance programs in every city I'm familiar with, not sure how it is where you are. We wouldn't need these programs for student debt if you could declare bankruptcy and have the loan discharged that way. It wouldn't be something you would do lightly, but the threat of the possibility would incentivize the banks to make sure that paying the loan is less of a burden than declaring bankruptcy.

twblalock 6y ago
> We wouldn't need these programs for student debt if you could declare bankruptcy and have the loan discharged that way. Ok, then only rich people get to go to college. Student loans cannot be discharged because they are not risk based. If they were risk-based, the only people who could qualify for them wouldn't need them anyway. 18-year-olds don't have credit history, and most of them don't have income either. You seem pretty hurt about voluntary loans that have really, really good repayment programs -- better than any other kinds of loans that exist. Why shouldn't people be able to borrow to go to college under those terms? Keep in in mind that they have no other options, and they cannot escape into an ideal world where college is free, and they cannot legally force their parents to give them money. For a lot of people, this is a fantastic deal and it's the only way they will ever go to college.
- imgabe 6y ago
  Of course they're risk based. It's just that all the risk is borne by the borrower, not the lender. Take out a bunch of loans and can't get a job? Too bad! You still have to pay your loans anyway. Your risk didn't work out. > 18-year-olds don't have credit history, and most of them don't have income either. Yes, this is exactly why in every other normal circumstance, lending them money is a bad idea. College used to be something where you could reasonably pay tuition with a decent summer job. If there is not an infinite supply of money to pay tuition, tuition will have to be lower. This will make it more accessible, not less.
  - twblalock 6y ago
    > College used to be something where you could reasonably pay tuition with a decent summer job. That was only true for a few decades in the late 20th century, due to massive state subsidies covered by taxpayers, many of whom did not get to go to college themselves. I guarantee you that college will not get cheaper if the student loan money dries up. The only thing that will change, is that only rich kids will get to go to college. Even public schools are building luxury student housing on campus. They aren't going to cut back, because they will always have enough rich kids and foreign students to cover the cost of running the place. In-state students are not who pay the bills. We don't live in a socialist country. If we hope for a utopia we will only lock non-rich kids out of college. If you want normal people to be able to afford college, they need access to loans, which fortunately have flexible terms and, again, amount to about the cost of a new car. It's hardly a dystopia. It's a realistic accomodation to a capitalist society, and a college loan is one of the least burdensome loans those students will undertake in their lives.
    - imgabe 6y ago
      And taking on massive student loan debt (also government subsidized) that you spend the majority of your adult lifetime paying off is only true for a few decades at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st century. I don't know why you're married to this concept as the end-all, be-all only option for education financing, especially when there is an endless flood of people saying how it personally harmed them. There are absolutely not enough foreign students to keep shoring up US universities. Many mid and lower tier schools are already experiencing cash flow problems. Many should and probably will close. There's no law of nature that demands you have to spend $40k a year to have someone tell you what Hamlet is about just so you can be qualified to come up with a new marketing campaign for a soft drink or whatever you end up doing. Most jobs don't require anything you learn in college, so why are we forcing kids into a lifetime of indentured servitude just so they can get a degree?