Proposed #CollegeForAll Plan Would Tax Wall Street to Destroy Student Debt

[Born To Slay 10,996]

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/04/03/proposed-collegeforall-plan-would-tax-wall-street-destroy-student-debt-crisis

Funded by the so-called Robin Hood Tax, the legislation would make community college free for all students, and would make public colleges and universities free for students of families who make up to $125,000 a year. It is similar to legislation unveiled by Sanders and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in that state earlier this year.

Press conference about the bill: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10155788029102908&id=9124187907&_rdr

[Chr 4,217]

It would be amazing but we know it won't happen 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

1 minute ago, Chrastapher said:

It would be amazing but we know it won't happen 

Whether this bill passes or not, it's important to constantly remind the public what can be done if progressives are elected. The GOP constantly put up Obamacare repeal bills under Obama knowing they wouldn't pass for the same reason.

[thedirtymonster 788]

...and what about current student debt? During the election, Hillary's plan was the only one that relieved the burden of so many people of our generation. It called for the ability to refinance current loans to lower interest rates that currently can't be refinanced, maintained the ability to get on an income-contingent repayment plan, and forgave loans after 20 years of payments, all while not raising taxes on anyone but the mega-wealthy. Bernie's plan was socialism 0.8. I, as a student with existing student debt, would not only have to repay what I already owe, but I would also have my taxes raised on me to pay for others' college education. Why should I pay for college TWICE?! Bernie's ideas are simply not feasible and not very effectively thought-out.

[Morphine Prince 109,653]

3 minutes ago, thedirtymonster said:

...and what about current student debt? During the election, Hillary's plan was the only one that relieved the burden of so many people of our generation. It called for the ability to refinance current loans to lower interest rates that currently can't be refinanced, maintained the ability to get on an income-contingent repayment plan, and forgave loans after 20 years of payments, all while not raising taxes on anyone but the mega-wealthy. Bernie's plan was socialism 0.8. I, as a student with existing student debt, would not only have to repay what I already owe, but I would also have my taxes raised on me to pay for others' college education. Why should I pay for college TWICE?! Bernie's ideas are simply not feasible and not very effectively thought-out.

Actually: 

Restoration of Historically Low Student Loan Interest Rates. The College for All Act would lower student loan interest rates by restoring the formula which was in effect until 2006. Student loan interest rates would be cut almost in half for undergraduate students, dropping from 4.32% to just 2.32%. In addition, the legislation would ensure rates never rise above 8.25%.

Student Loan Re-financing. The College for All Act would enable borrowers to refinance their loans based on the interest rates available to current students 

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file

 

[Morphine Prince 109,653]

The progressive legislation is a far more aggressive approach at making college affordable compared to President Donald Trump's campaign plans surrounding student loan reform, which would force borrowers to pay more but exit the system sooner based on a 15-year forgiveness proposal. Trump has yet to propose his plan to Congress. 

[thedirtymonster 788]

15 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Restoration of Historically Low Student Loan Interest Rates. The College for All Act would lower student loan interest rates by restoring the formula which was in effect until 2006. Student loan interest rates would be cut almost in half for undergraduate students, dropping from 4.32% to just 2.32%. In addition, the legislation would ensure rates never rise above 8.25%.

Student Loan Re-financing. The College for All Act would enable borrowers to refinance their loans based on the interest rates available to current students 

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file

 

8.25%? That's considered "Low"? The only student loans that are above that now are primarily private loans, which can ALREADY be refinanced as they don't have the protections and benefits that federal student loans provide. Seems useless.

Don't get me wrong, any progress on minimizing the crippling student debt crisis is certainly a step in the right direction, though there are still major flaws. For instance, the implementation of a NEW tax on Wall Street while one of the most recognizable Wall Street cronies is the President of the United States? That's laughable. A better approach would be to pay for it by limiting tax expenditures for high-income taxpayers, as Hillary's plan called for. It'd be much easier to tighten loopholes on current tax policy than creating an entirely new one. 

Additionally, this hypothetical, unrealistic "Robin Hood Tax" would cover the federal portion of the plan, but the plan says that 33% of the plan would be covered by the states. How does Bernie plan on paying for that? NEW TAXES ON US! Again, I'm already paying for my college education, why should I have to pay twice??

We have to be realistic. As Hillary once said "I'm a progressive. But I'm a progressive who actually gets things done".

[Morphine Prince 109,653]

3 minutes ago, thedirtymonster said:

8.25%? That's considered "Low"? The only student loans that are above that now are primarily private loans, which can ALREADY be refinanced as they don't have the protections and benefits that federal student loans provide. Seems useless.

Don't get me wrong, any progress on minimizing the crippling student debt crisis is certainly a step in the right direction, though there are still major flaws. For instance, the implementation of a NEW tax on Wall Street while one of the most recognizable Wall Street cronies is the President of the United States? That's laughable. A better approach would be to pay for it by limiting tax expenditures for high-income taxpayers, as Hillary's plan called for. It'd be much easier to tighten loopholes on current tax policy than creating an entirely new one. 

We have to be realistic. As Hillary once said "I'm a progressive. But I'm a progressive who actually gets things done".

Well Senators should introduce legislation similar to Hillary's then. I haven't heard of any bills yet. 

But rn this is what progressives are doing. It obviously won't pass but at least it's gaining attention and will (hopefully) work in the Dems. favor in 2018 and 2020 when I think a moderate Dem. will run and win. 

[thedirtymonster 788]

Just now, Morphine Prince said:

But rn this is what progressives are doing. It obviously won't pass but at least it's gaining attention.

Exactly what they're doing. Bernie is doing this as a stunt for attention. I find it as a slap in the face because so many of us are really looking for realistic solutions to help relieve the crippling student debt that is holding us back from purchasing a starter home, saving for retirement, and investing in our futures.

[Morphine Prince 109,653]

3 minutes ago, thedirtymonster said:

Exactly what they're doing. Bernie is doing this as a stunt for attention. I find it as a slap in the face because so many of us are really looking for realistic solutions to help relieve the crippling student debt that is holding us back from purchasing a starter home, saving for retirement, and investing in our futures.

Why are you such an avid Bernie hater? He isn't the only one on this bill. Look up the names of everyone supporting the bill. 

Call your representatives and let them know what you want. They should be introducing legislation that has a higher chance of passing. 

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

Considering the ties that most big business's have to wall street,  the media blitz and pressure from big money would make this bill pretty unlikely.  

Bernie has good ideas as to what the people need and could get, but isn't realistic on how to get said ideas paid for. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

OK that's fine and dandy but tell me what happens to the demand for a college degree if you increase the supply of people that have them 

We can't make college "free" without ruining the value of degrees in general. If you've ever taken an econ class you know this...

[Morphine Prince 109,653]

2 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

OK that's fine and dandy but tell me what happens to the demand for a college degree if you increase the supply of people that have them 

We can't make college "free" without ruining the value of degrees in general. If you've ever taken an econ class you know this...

This is a point I often think about but then are degrees worthless in European countries where education is 'free' ? 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 hour ago, MJHolland said:

OK that's fine and dandy but tell me what happens to the demand for a college degree if you increase the supply of people that have them 

We can't make college "free" without ruining the value of degrees in general. If you've ever taken an econ class you know this...

I don't think an economic approach alone is the right way to look at this.

For one thing, there are more factors to consider... The selectivity of schools won't change just because more people can afford to go to college, which would increase competition and output collectively, which is good #capitalism, and the college wage premium is not consistent amongst all job fields as far as I know. There are many sectors in the job market that people can be very successful in personally and financially without even getting a degree. Still, in other fields the value of a Bachelor's Degree is already in flux; in some you need a Masters to be taken seriously or even get a decent job, yet in others not enough people are even majoring in the field to fill up all of the available jobs in the country... Not to mention that job fields are growing and shrinking job fields as we progress as a society in lots of ways, especially technologically  

 

But also... the point of allowing people to go to college for free (or just more people in general) at its core is to have a more well educated and potentially successful society which really benefits everyone (other than Republicans :poot: ). I don't think that across the board the value of a Bachelor's Degree will decrease unless every other factor stagnates. It may become even harder just to get into colleges, and the requirements to get a degree in X field may similarly become harder as well  I just don't think this is the only potential outcome from making College heavily accessible.. Even if it does though... isn't it better to have a generally more educated, successful citizens than to hold back a lot of them from their potential? More people may want to get further degrees as well. There's just so much to consider beyond the idea that Bachelor's Degrees may become less valued (especially since that itself is a bit too simplistic)

 

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

42 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I don't think an economic approach alone is the right way to look at this.

For one thing, there are more factors to consider... The selectivity of schools won't change just because more people can afford to go to college, which would increase competition and output collectively, which is good #capitalism, and the college wage premium is not consistent amongst all job fields as far as I know. There are many sectors in the job market that people can be very successful in personally and financially without even getting a degree. Still, in other fields the value of a Bachelor's Degree is already in flux; in some you need a Masters to be taken seriously or even get a decent job, yet in others not enough people are even majoring in the field to fill up all of the available jobs in the country... Not to mention that job fields are growing and shrinking job fields as we progress as a society in lots of ways, especially technologically  

 

But also... the point of allowing people to go to college for free (or just more people in general) at its core is to have a more well educated and potentially successful society which really benefits everyone (other than Republicans :poot: ). I don't think that across the board the value of a Bachelor's Degree will decrease unless every other factor stagnates. It may become even harder just to get into colleges, and the requirements to get a degree in X field may similarly become harder as well  I just don't think this is the only potential outcome from making College heavily accessible.. Even if it does though... isn't it better to have a generally more educated, successful citizens than to hold back a lot of them from their potential? More people may want to get further degrees as well. There's just so much to consider beyond the idea that Bachelor's Degrees may become less valued (especially since that itself is a bit too simplistic)

 

yeah, cities full of smart people with no jobs or cities full of dumb people with no jobs...take ur pick