Unlike most liberals, I don't like the idea of generalized elimination of student debt.
Partly that's because I dislike the idea of a net transfer of wealth to people like young doctors and lawyers who will end up making a killing in their lifetimes.
Partly it's that I don't like the injustice of it in a situation where you compare someone who spent years making sacrifices to pay down what she owes, and a peer who lived the high life while making only minimum payments and taking every deferment opportunity, and now they're both put in the same situation.
But mostly it's because I worry about the unintended consequences -- for example, if lenders worry about debts being wiped out again, they'll charge much higher rates to account for that risk, making education even less affordable. Similarly, if people implicitly factor in the chance of having debt wiped out, they'll be willing to take on more of it, which puts upward pressure on college costs.
So, here's my pet idea, in lieu of that:
The government agrees to pay off however much student debt you'd like them to pay off, but in exchange you get a PERMANENT increase in all your tax rates of 0.1 point (income, estate, and capital gains), for each $1,000 of debt the government assumes.
So, say you graduate with $50,000 in student debt at 10yrs/5% terms, but you can only find work paying $30,000 per year. And so that $6,364 per year in loan payments is just killing you. You can wipe it all out, and in exchange your tax rates go up 5 points. Based on a $12,550 standard deduction, you would have been on the hook for $1,895 in taxes, but after the increase you'd be on the hook for $2,270. So, year one, you're relieved of $6,364 in payments, in exchange for $375 in extra taxes. Great deal. And even across a lifetime of earning, you are likely to come out ahead with that deal, unless you wind up making a lot more money down the road. So, you'd probably be smart to take the deal.
Now say that, instead, you're a freshly minted lawyer with a job offer from a big firm to earn $200,000. Well, now, if you take that same offer to wipe out $50k in debt for a permanent 5 point hike in tax rates, then year one you get the same $6,364 off your loan liability, but it's in exchange for a year one increase in taxes of $14,169. So, right out of the gate, it's a garbage deal, and you won't take it. You'll just pay what you owe.
Where it gets a bit tougher is in the middle. Like same deal, but your job pays $60k/year. Taking the deal helps you out in the early years: $6,365/year of debt payment relief in exchange for $3,498 more in taxes. But ten years down the road, that loan would be going away, anyway, whereas that tax increase persists. So, if you're really hurting right now, maybe it's worth paying more in the long haul in exchange for relief when you really need it. But if you're honest with yourself, you may admit the current pain isn't really that bad, so just bite bullet, tighten your belt, and pay what you owe.
You can tweak this idea by adjusting what dollar amounts equate with what tax change. Like if it's 0.1 point of hike for every $2,000, instead of every $1,000, it's friendlier to debtors..... it still wouldn't be attractive the lawyer in the second example, but will look like a better deal for the guy making $60k in the third.
The advantage of this system is that it gives people an incentive to be honest with the government, and themselves, about future earning prospects. If you're genuinely desperate, you'll jump at this, but if you know you're just temporarily strapped and will soon have plenty of money, you won't offload that debt onto the taxpayer when you know it'll mean higher taxes on a lifetime of high earnings. And it preserve the incentive to keep school costs low, since you pay at least some of it in some form, regardless.
Partly that's because I dislike the idea of a net transfer of wealth to people like young doctors and lawyers who will end up making a killing in their lifetimes.
Partly it's that I don't like the injustice of it in a situation where you compare someone who spent years making sacrifices to pay down what she owes, and a peer who lived the high life while making only minimum payments and taking every deferment opportunity, and now they're both put in the same situation.
But mostly it's because I worry about the unintended consequences -- for example, if lenders worry about debts being wiped out again, they'll charge much higher rates to account for that risk, making education even less affordable. Similarly, if people implicitly factor in the chance of having debt wiped out, they'll be willing to take on more of it, which puts upward pressure on college costs.
So, here's my pet idea, in lieu of that:
The government agrees to pay off however much student debt you'd like them to pay off, but in exchange you get a PERMANENT increase in all your tax rates of 0.1 point (income, estate, and capital gains), for each $1,000 of debt the government assumes.
So, say you graduate with $50,000 in student debt at 10yrs/5% terms, but you can only find work paying $30,000 per year. And so that $6,364 per year in loan payments is just killing you. You can wipe it all out, and in exchange your tax rates go up 5 points. Based on a $12,550 standard deduction, you would have been on the hook for $1,895 in taxes, but after the increase you'd be on the hook for $2,270. So, year one, you're relieved of $6,364 in payments, in exchange for $375 in extra taxes. Great deal. And even across a lifetime of earning, you are likely to come out ahead with that deal, unless you wind up making a lot more money down the road. So, you'd probably be smart to take the deal.
Now say that, instead, you're a freshly minted lawyer with a job offer from a big firm to earn $200,000. Well, now, if you take that same offer to wipe out $50k in debt for a permanent 5 point hike in tax rates, then year one you get the same $6,364 off your loan liability, but it's in exchange for a year one increase in taxes of $14,169. So, right out of the gate, it's a garbage deal, and you won't take it. You'll just pay what you owe.
Where it gets a bit tougher is in the middle. Like same deal, but your job pays $60k/year. Taking the deal helps you out in the early years: $6,365/year of debt payment relief in exchange for $3,498 more in taxes. But ten years down the road, that loan would be going away, anyway, whereas that tax increase persists. So, if you're really hurting right now, maybe it's worth paying more in the long haul in exchange for relief when you really need it. But if you're honest with yourself, you may admit the current pain isn't really that bad, so just bite bullet, tighten your belt, and pay what you owe.
You can tweak this idea by adjusting what dollar amounts equate with what tax change. Like if it's 0.1 point of hike for every $2,000, instead of every $1,000, it's friendlier to debtors..... it still wouldn't be attractive the lawyer in the second example, but will look like a better deal for the guy making $60k in the third.
The advantage of this system is that it gives people an incentive to be honest with the government, and themselves, about future earning prospects. If you're genuinely desperate, you'll jump at this, but if you know you're just temporarily strapped and will soon have plenty of money, you won't offload that debt onto the taxpayer when you know it'll mean higher taxes on a lifetime of high earnings. And it preserve the incentive to keep school costs low, since you pay at least some of it in some form, regardless.
