| ▲ | crossbody 2 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
The students bear costs but no benefit to themselves? No higher wages? My point is that it doesn't matter in principle if one takes a loan and pays it down over time vs. one is taxed at much higher % and that tax "pays down" a phantom student loan of "free" education. It does introduce a risk and hence the incentive for loan takers to choose their degree wisely though. Which should lead to better allocation of labor but at a cost of some personal risk. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | xethos 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
I actually included the graduate as a beneficiary ("a well-paid, highly taxed contributor" or "the graduate" in the counter), but more importantly: The entirety of society benefits from a well-educated populace. That's one reason even those without children pay for public education. Following that, if everyone benefits, why is the graduate taking on all the risk (via a non-dischargeable student loan) instead of spreading the risk across the entirety of society? | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | eli_gottlieb 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> The students bear costs but no benefit to themselves? No higher wages? Nobody said the student achieves no benefit. We keep saying that the student does not capture all the benefit of their own education in higher wages, but bears the entire cost. | |||||||||||||||||