Lots of things benefit society and don't cost $40k per year per person in subsidies - mainly to the upper middle class.

Strange how I never see this line deployed against the mortgage interest deduction or health care for wealthy retirees, both of which are considerably more expensive.

Subsidizing college education, at least, has a reliably positive ROI.

▲

onlyrealcuzzo 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> mortgage interest deduction

By far the worst offender.

> health care for wealthy retirees

Theoretically, they paid into the system to get their dues.

> Subsidizing college education, at least, has a reliably positive ROI.

There's evidence at the State level, at least in many states, it does not pay for itself.

▲

triceratops 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Then at the very least college debt should be dischargeable in bankruptcy the way people can walk away from their mortgage.

▲

bsder 4 days ago | parent [-]

Agreed. The idiotic law not allowing college debt to be cleared by bankruptcy is the primary reason why college has gotten so expensive.

	▲	votepaunchy 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Then treat college debt like any other loan instead of subsidies backstopped with government bailouts.

▲

gottorf 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Strange how I never see this line deployed against the mortgage interest deduction or health care for wealthy retirees

For what it's worth, I see arguments like this all the time. Might just be the corner of the information ecosystem you hang out in.

> Subsidizing college education, at least, has a reliably positive ROI.

Maybe it did in the past, where the greatest marginal gains were. Does it still hold true now? Over a third of the US has a bachelor's degree. Is there a reliably positive ROI to society in taking that third to, say, half?