Desert Fox wrote:I'm not really trolling. I wouldn't retroactively fuck people relying on it now. But there is ZERO evidence that paying 300k so Hippy Hillary can get a NYU education in LAW is even remotely a good use of funds. It's welfare for the privileged.
Also, making it 25 years still means you won't pay it off. It just means you'll pay more of it off. You would still be able to afford to do PI. You just have to pay like 5% of your income to student loans. That's not asking too much, especially compared to the loans the rest of society has.
Unlimited 10 year PLIF is a bad policy. Objectively.
Yeah, I don't consider people who come out of law school with a lower-middle to middle-class salary "privileged." And honestly, paid-for (or low-cost) higher ed is a welfare we should have extended to these "privileged" a long freaking time ago. Either way, it's just talking past the real problem to go after PSLF. We should all focus on pushing Congress to fix the real problems of higher ed that would ultimately fix this problem too rather than saddling up for dividing up which loan forgiveness program is more welfare-hoggish.
I mean, like you said, 25 years under PAYE is still a bad incentives program (just less bad). I remember running a $60,000 salary through the gov'ts PAYE calculator once (available if you log-in to the Direct Loans website) and it put me at paying $130k rather than $200k. So, they'd forgive a mere
70k (for a little better than shitlaw) rather than $130-140k (depending on 10% or 15% income). Is a cushion from shitlaw something we want the gov't to pay for? (to play devil's advocate). Still sounds like a shitty incentive to me that the gov't should attack if it wanted to go down that route. Really, they should just fix the fucking problem rather than dicing us up like this.