Posted on 07/23/2019 10:03:57 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Democrats are in the middle of a presidential primary and the Republicans are not, so lefty ideas about how to fix student debt — i.e., throwing taxpayer money at borrowers — have gotten a lot of media coverage. Less noted have been numerous better ideas emanating from the right.
As I argued at length in a print piece earlier this month, while the “crisis” here is overblown and massive new taxpayer handouts wholly unjustified, the system does need reform. Specifically, we need to do two things: (1) provide worthy students a way to fund their education without crippling their finances, but also without dumping their costs on everyone else; and (2) give colleges incentives to control their costs and stop admitting students who won’t benefit, and who might well drop out and/or end up defaulting on their loans.
Two recent papers from the Manhattan Institute nicely illustrate conservative ways of approaching these issues. And each touts an idea with some support in Congress.
The first, written by Jason Delisle and released today, makes the case for “income-share agreements.” Under these arrangements, a lender pays for a student’s education, and in return the student pays a set percentage of his income for a set number of years. This way, students pay for their education during the years when they’re benefiting from it the most — the years when their earnings are high — and are protected against big bills when they’re struggling.
Delisle’s proposal is to take this as a model for the entire student-loan program. The rule is simple: You can borrow up to $50,000, and for every $10,000 you borrow, you owe 1 percent of your earnings for the next 25 years (unless you first hit the repayment cap of 1.75 times the amount of the loan). If you get married, you pay for your ISA based on half the household income. If you make less than $12,000 or receive the earned-income tax credit, your payments are reduced or eliminated.
Everyone is entitled to nearly twice as much money as the typical four-year student borrows today, and no one ever loses more than 5 percent of his income repaying it. Further, collections are handled through the existing income-tax system, streamlining the process.
I might be inclined to expand students’ options beyond what Delisle offers. Students should be able to pick higher payments in exchange for shorter loans so they’re not still paying in their 40s, and to reduce their obligations by making extra payments. But the proposal is elegant and simple, showing how workable ISAs could be if we could build up political support for them. One bill in Congress would start the process of doing this by cleaning up some of the legal technicalities surrounding them, while another would give students a new option that’s fairly similar to an ISA, but we need some far more aggressive ideas like Delisle’s.
ISAs put the focus on how students pay, rather than putting colleges on the hook for helping students run up debts they can’t pay off. For that we can turn to another recent Manhattan Institute paper, by Beth Akers.
Akers promotes the concept of a “money-back guarantee.” It turns out that more than 100 colleges already have arrangements in which students get help paying off their loans if they end up not making very much money. In other words, these colleges voluntarily shoulder some of the risk that a student’s degree won’t pay off.
In this case it’s Congress that has the most aggressive proposal. Senator Josh Hawley has introduced a bill requiring colleges to pay off half the loans of students who default. This is a good idea, though, as I noted last week, the bill includes an odd provision trying to stop colleges from raising prices to cover this new liability, which is both practically challenging and economically questionable. (If a college hikes tuition so it can shoulder this new liability without changing anything else, it effectively “prices in” half the risk of default for its students, which is not the worst thing in the world. Ideally most colleges should cut costs instead, but it’s folly to try to mandate this across the board.)
ISAs and money-back guarantees are two different options, but they both aim to make college affordable without spending lots of taxpayer money on a disproportionately wealthy chunk of the population. Indeed, it would be possible to combine them: Loans could be provided through ISAs, and schools could be required to pitch in when their students aren’t paying those loans back.
That makes a lot more sense than taking hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and handing them over to some of the country’s most fortunate individuals.
Exactly. The best choice is partial bailout in exchange for divestiture. Every other political alternative is far worse.
Don't allow tuition increases after the 1st year.
Don't authorize loans for a field of study that doesn't have an average Return on Investment over 10 years, assuming 25% of salary is applied.
Cut college admin staff in half.
My answer is f-you,pay your f-ing loan! This is pure insanity!
In my world, the textbook companies would make use of resources like YouTube to put up videos to explain their textbooks that you can watch as often as you want and the creation of chat forums that you can join to discuss the textbooks.
No thanks. The colleges should be letting people enroll for free since they are government subsidized. Don’t even get me started on their endowments.
The English use an income share model. Theirs is defective because the government has to eat loans that don’t get paid off.
Some people like the idea of colleges co-signing loans.
Agreed. How about endentured servitude until the debt is paid?
“Everyone is entitled to nearly twice as much money as the typical four-year student borrows today”
Sounds like its making the problem individually bigger, or more widespread.
“and no one ever loses more than 5 percent of his income repaying it”
How much will the government lose?
You’re making this suggestion because the Federal government is so good at making predictions and estimates?
“Limit the number of degrees in any field to a government estimate of the number of jobs that will require said degree.”
The CEOs will say half the domestic graduates are incompetent and that they’ll need to import foreigners to fill half the better paying jobs.
Any idea that has the federal government losing money subsidizing stuff isn’t conservative.
Limit the number of degrees in any field to a government estimate of the number of jobs that will require said degree
The most important change is to allow student loan debt to be cleared in bankrupcy in exactly the same way car loans, home loans, personal loans, business loans, any other kind of loan are.
This means the banks and universities actually risk default. Which means they will start to ask the same questions every other loan asks — “How can we [the bank] be sure you will pay it back?”. This in turn will cause parents, colleges, and banks to ask hard questions about whether the degree is worth it and perhaps that cheaper school down the road would be the better option.
“the most aggressive proposal. Senator Josh Hawley has introduced a bill requiring colleges to pay off half the loans of students who default.”
If default is missing a payment (or several), lots of students will find a way to default.
Co-signing by colleges and students would keep both on the hook and discourage financial gaming.
Co-signing by colleges is simple to implement.
It seems to me that a lot of kids think if they can only get a degree from a big name school they will graduate into a $100,000+ job regardless of their actual abilities.
The first 50 % of debt repayment comes from university Endowment funds. The second 50 % comes after all universities allow placement tests for all basic subjects. The university degree is reduced to 2 years and only available to those who can place out of the first two years through independent study or community college. Only the last two year’s is eligible to be “free” there are so many reforms that could be made on the cost side and shockingly (s/) there is not one sentence of discussion about this when the student loan “crises” is discussed
And how exactly does this helps poor, under privileged, and middle class people who made good decisions?
“you owe 1 percent of your earnings for the next 25 years”
I think I paid off my loans from 1975-1979 in about five years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.