Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The worst part is, the sky high interest rates could be defended if the loans were able to be discharged through bankruptcy. The retort on here on why they are so high is because of the dead beats not paying off their loans. But that excuse cannot be used since they are not dischargeable, and students could be paying on it their whole lifetime which proves it is pure greed plain and simple.
It is a get rich quick scheme played on our youth with 0 risk to the lenders
Student loans can be discharged via bankruptcy, but it's very rare and hard to do. You have to file paperwork in addition to the usual and prove to the judge that paying the loans present undue hardship.
There are people who major in "liberal arts" who make more than 150k a year.
But, I overall do think that borrowing should be tied in some way to the type of degree a person is seeking and whether or not that person plans to go to graduate school.
what % of undergrad degrees do you think pay $150K/year for a 40 hour workweek, 50 weeks/year straight out of school.
what % of liberal arts degrees do you think do?
there are also people that dropped out of school and were billionaires within a decade. Not many, but they exist!!
True, but most don't "borrow" the 100k. It just winds up at that amount or higher due to the sky-high interest rates that were allowed over the past couple of decades.
Prior to that, rates for student loans were very low.
so apparently, you're saying that they're allowed to negative am their debt after school, since they can't afford the interest with the job they get with all that debt. I believe that was my last point in the quoted post
Oh, come on. I'm not saying it's a political issue. I'm saying people with means (who tend to lean conservative, especially in the south) were quite fond of the "strategic default."
you may not be saying it's a political issue - and it shouldn't be; no one else said Dems v Republicans.
And I think if you go google "loan default rates" by state, you'll find the South (outside FL and the ATL area) did not have anywhere near the national level of defaults that other places did.
In 2010, not 1 Southern city outside FL was on the top 10 default list. here's but one article
Worth is a monetary term. If one's earning potential after college is not significantly greater than before college, then that education was worthless.
If you mean "personal enrichment", that's another matter and the government shouldn't be getting involved in that. If a bank wants to make an unsecured loan to someone seeking to "find themself" that's their business but they shouldn't have any more artifical protection than a credit card issuer financing one's vacation.
I'm a fan of not kicking people at all but I'm also not a fan of financing someone's personal enrichment endeavors (aka hobbies).
If you think the system is corrupt and revenue-based now, just wait til the government is paying for "free" college tuition for all where the colleges can submit bills that no one ever sees. Universities will milk from a bloated education appropriation the way currently defense contractors milk from a bloated military appropriation.
Don't worry about paying them back. Just wait until you're old enough to collect SS, they'll take up to 15% of it every month until all loans, interest, and penalties are paid off..
The worst part is, the sky high interest rates could be defended if the loans were able to be discharged through bankruptcy. The retort on here on why they are so high is because of the dead beats not paying off their loans. But that excuse cannot be used since they are not dischargeable, and students could be paying on it their whole lifetime which proves it is pure greed plain and simple.
It is a get rich quick scheme played on our youth with 0 risk to the lenders
and yet here, on page whatever, no one has produced any actual numbers, rates, data. What's the Gov't $ percent of total loans, what's the gov't rate, what's the private rate? Seems someone like you or Redzin shouldn't have any issue trotting out figures to make your point.
I doubt very many people have an issue with qualified students from less-affluent backgrounds obtaining loans - even subsidized by lowered interest rates - that allow them to work their way through college while obtaining a degree that provides them the opportunity to realize a ROI on the cost.
I have found that most of the people in your situation are the very ones who talk smack about student borrowers, to be honest with you, Bo.
Not all of us had parents who paid our way. Some of us needed loans. I feel for anyone who cannot pay them back. I can tell you that my own kids are paying their own way through college and have been HEAVILY cautioned against taking out any loans that amount to more than about 10-30k for an entire degree. I figure most people can pay back the cost of an automobile after college. More than this is worrisome to me because I have friends with some pretty serious horror stories about interest accruals and garnishments.
so why wouldn't you expect the same out of others?
You cannot possibly be "independent" and claim that "it's OK for everyone else, I feel bad for them. But I'm teaching my kids the RIGHT way" - which you ARE, btw.
I know several folks who worked and paid their way through school. I know some who farted around, their parents quit paying for it, and they went to work until either a)they realized that "higher education" wasn't for them OR b) they decided they preferred white collar to blue collar work and buckled their ass down and then finished school quickly.
And I know that I worked during HS, during the summers in college, and 20 hours/week during my last semester in college.
It is being repaid one way or another.
The original lender can sell the loan without your consent.
There is no statue of limitations on loan collection.
There is zero risk to the lenders thanks to the partnership they have with the government.
It was the banks that pushed the government make the loans nondischargeable and soon after the costs soared because it was easy money with no risk to them.
Nonsense. The loan is often not repaid at all. Ever. When a lender sells the loan to a collection agent it is for pennies on the dollar. The government does not reimburse lender for defaulted loans. There is less risk because it is dischargeable but still risk.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
