Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

College Finance Reform

Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 7:18:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Question:

Would you support a plan that gives students in college federal loans (if needed) that are paid back after the students get their degree, and pay no more than 10% of their income in paying back these loans over time?

Answer in bold Yes/No
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 7:20:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 7:18:54 PM, Contra wrote:
Question:

Would you support a plan that gives students in college federal loans (if needed) that are paid back after the students get their degree, and pay no more than 10% of their income in paying back these loans over time?

Answer in bold Yes/No

No
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 7:21:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes

Why not DanT?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 7:22:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No because the amount of interest from only taking from 10% of income would be close to zero for an average private college.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 7:33:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No.

The lower the saturation of college graduates the more value the degree obtains. Otherwise, it is simply a worthless piece of paper.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 7:45:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 7:21:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
Yes

Why not DanT?

1.) I had a bad experience with the FedLoan service.
2.) a loan should not be paid by percentage of income.
3.) I don't trust they would keep it at 10%, especially when unemployment is high, and it becomes a liability
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 7:54:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 7:18:54 PM, Contra wrote:
Question:

Would you support a plan that gives students in college federal loans (if needed) that are paid back after the students get their degree, and pay no more than 10% of their income in paying back these loans over time?

Answer in bold Yes/No:

What's the incentive? Would it mean that the student doesn't pay interest on the loan? If not, then what's the benefit in adding a 3rd party for something that could be done by two indivudals?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 8:31:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No.

Check my ideology and past behavior toward government spending for reasons why.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 8:39:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Not only that, tying what you owe to what you earn basically means you earn more money for having a lower income if you are able to avoid paying off a huge debt.

You are also encouraged to use the maximum the loan allows if you believe that you will never really have to pay it off.

This is a great way to further screw up government finances; there is a reason banks would never do this.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 8:44:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 8:47:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 8:39:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Not only that, tying what you owe to what you earn basically means you earn more money for having a lower income if you are able to avoid paying off a huge debt.

You are also encouraged to use the maximum the loan allows if you believe that you will never really have to pay it off.

This is a great way to further screw up government finances; there is a reason banks would never do this.

This
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 9:56:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 8:39:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Not only that, tying what you owe to what you earn basically means you earn more money for having a lower income if you are able to avoid paying off a huge debt.

No you don't. If you make $10,000 and owe 10% you get $9,000. If you make $20,000 you get $18,000. No matter how much you make, you always have more money the more you earn.

You are also encouraged to use the maximum the loan allows if you believe that you will never really have to pay it off.

Larger the loan, the more you have to take away from your percent salary.

This is a great way to further screw up government finances; there is a reason banks would never do this.

The reason they never do it is because its illegal since its a form of indentured servitude.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 10:00:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 9:56:51 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:39:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Not only that, tying what you owe to what you earn basically means you earn more money for having a lower income if you are able to avoid paying off a huge debt.

No you don't. If you make $10,000 and owe 10% you get $9,000. If you make $20,000 you get $18,000. No matter how much you make, you always have more money the more you earn.

You are also encouraged to use the maximum the loan allows if you believe that you will never really have to pay it off.

Larger the loan, the more you have to take away from your percent salary.

This is a great way to further screw up government finances; there is a reason banks would never do this.

The reason they never do it is because its illegal since its a form of indentured servitude.

It would be payed OFF at a 10% amount. And, 10% isn't just a drop in the bucket for most people. It sounds like a pragmatic solution with smart investments in our middle and lower economic classes to create a real economic boom for another American century based on dealing with what we lack - more education with our workforce.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 10:03:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 10:00:42 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:56:51 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:39:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Not only that, tying what you owe to what you earn basically means you earn more money for having a lower income if you are able to avoid paying off a huge debt.

No you don't. If you make $10,000 and owe 10% you get $9,000. If you make $20,000 you get $18,000. No matter how much you make, you always have more money the more you earn.

You are also encouraged to use the maximum the loan allows if you believe that you will never really have to pay it off.

Larger the loan, the more you have to take away from your percent salary.

This is a great way to further screw up government finances; there is a reason banks would never do this.

The reason they never do it is because its illegal since its a form of indentured servitude.

It would be payed OFF at a 10% amount. And, 10% isn't just a drop in the bucket for most people. It sounds like a pragmatic solution with smart investments in our middle and lower economic classes to create a real economic boom for another American century based on dealing with what we lack - more education with our workforce.

Let me do the calculation. I did it before, but I didn't take into consideration the effect of inflation.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 10:05:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 10:03:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/13/2012 10:00:42 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:56:51 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:39:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Not only that, tying what you owe to what you earn basically means you earn more money for having a lower income if you are able to avoid paying off a huge debt.

No you don't. If you make $10,000 and owe 10% you get $9,000. If you make $20,000 you get $18,000. No matter how much you make, you always have more money the more you earn.

You are also encouraged to use the maximum the loan allows if you believe that you will never really have to pay it off.

Larger the loan, the more you have to take away from your percent salary.

This is a great way to further screw up government finances; there is a reason banks would never do this.

The reason they never do it is because its illegal since its a form of indentured servitude.

It would be payed OFF at a 10% amount. And, 10% isn't just a drop in the bucket for most people. It sounds like a pragmatic solution with smart investments in our middle and lower economic classes to create a real economic boom for another American century based on dealing with what we lack - more education with our workforce.

Let me do the calculation. I did it before, but I didn't take into consideration the effect of inflation.

Okay then
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 10:22:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 10:05:02 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/13/2012 10:03:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/13/2012 10:00:42 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:56:51 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:39:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Not only that, tying what you owe to what you earn basically means you earn more money for having a lower income if you are able to avoid paying off a huge debt.

No you don't. If you make $10,000 and owe 10% you get $9,000. If you make $20,000 you get $18,000. No matter how much you make, you always have more money the more you earn.

You are also encouraged to use the maximum the loan allows if you believe that you will never really have to pay it off.

Larger the loan, the more you have to take away from your percent salary.

This is a great way to further screw up government finances; there is a reason banks would never do this.

The reason they never do it is because its illegal since its a form of indentured servitude.

It would be payed OFF at a 10% amount. And, 10% isn't just a drop in the bucket for most people. It sounds like a pragmatic solution with smart investments in our middle and lower economic classes to create a real economic boom for another American century based on dealing with what we lack - more education with our workforce.

Let me do the calculation. I did it before, but I didn't take into consideration the effect of inflation.

Okay then

Solved. The interest rate would be only 3.4% which is kind of pathetic, considering I included a 3% inflation rate. So it's only a real interest rate of 0.4%.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 10:24:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 10:22:18 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/13/2012 10:05:02 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/13/2012 10:03:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/13/2012 10:00:42 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:56:51 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:39:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Not only that, tying what you owe to what you earn basically means you earn more money for having a lower income if you are able to avoid paying off a huge debt.

No you don't. If you make $10,000 and owe 10% you get $9,000. If you make $20,000 you get $18,000. No matter how much you make, you always have more money the more you earn.

You are also encouraged to use the maximum the loan allows if you believe that you will never really have to pay it off.

Larger the loan, the more you have to take away from your percent salary.

This is a great way to further screw up government finances; there is a reason banks would never do this.

The reason they never do it is because its illegal since its a form of indentured servitude.

It would be payed OFF at a 10% amount. And, 10% isn't just a drop in the bucket for most people. It sounds like a pragmatic solution with smart investments in our middle and lower economic classes to create a real economic boom for another American century based on dealing with what we lack - more education with our workforce.

Let me do the calculation. I did it before, but I didn't take into consideration the effect of inflation.

Okay then

Solved. The interest rate would be only 3.4% which is kind of pathetic, considering I included a 3% inflation rate. So it's only a real interest rate of 0.4%.

I didn't really expect the gov't to profit from this by interest. I thought a more educated workforce and a more dynamic, prosperous economy would be the real reason to pursue such a idea.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 10:29:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
By the way here were my assumptions:
-Starting salary of $39,000.
-Cost of college and as a result loan is $35,000 per year
-Takes 4 years to finish
-Salary increases as a stead pace till after 27 years. Then goes flat
-flatline is $81,964
-3% interest rate
-45 years working
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 10:30:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 10:24:07 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/13/2012 10:22:18 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/13/2012 10:05:02 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/13/2012 10:03:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/13/2012 10:00:42 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:56:51 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:39:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Not only that, tying what you owe to what you earn basically means you earn more money for having a lower income if you are able to avoid paying off a huge debt.

No you don't. If you make $10,000 and owe 10% you get $9,000. If you make $20,000 you get $18,000. No matter how much you make, you always have more money the more you earn.

You are also encouraged to use the maximum the loan allows if you believe that you will never really have to pay it off.

Larger the loan, the more you have to take away from your percent salary.

This is a great way to further screw up government finances; there is a reason banks would never do this.

The reason they never do it is because its illegal since its a form of indentured servitude.

It would be payed OFF at a 10% amount. And, 10% isn't just a drop in the bucket for most people. It sounds like a pragmatic solution with smart investments in our middle and lower economic classes to create a real economic boom for another American century based on dealing with what we lack - more education with our workforce.

Let me do the calculation. I did it before, but I didn't take into consideration the effect of inflation.

Okay then

Solved. The interest rate would be only 3.4% which is kind of pathetic, considering I included a 3% inflation rate. So it's only a real interest rate of 0.4%.

I didn't really expect the gov't to profit from this by interest. I thought a more educated workforce and a more dynamic, prosperous economy would be the real reason to pursue such a idea.

Well then your mis-allocating resources when it can go to more profitable ventures that will increase output.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 11:12:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I thought a more educated workforce and a more dynamic, prosperous economy would be the real reason to pursue such a idea.

The education bubble is already on its way to popping without more such idiocy.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 12:51:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Absolutely not.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran