Auto-Save Draft feature temporarily disabled. Please be sure you manually save your post by selecting "Save Draft" if you have that need.

STUDENT LOANS

13

Comments

  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 11,492
    There was a subminimum wage when I was in high school.  Late 80s
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 11,796
    mace1229 said:
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    mrussel1 said:
    CBO releases analysis on $15 min wage by 2025.  It's a mixed bag.  Helps some but net job loss.  

    Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, from the current $7.25 an hour level, as President Biden has called for, would cut employment by 1.4 million and reduce the number of Americans below the poverty line by 900,000, according to a study released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday.

    The cumulative federal budget deficit from 2021 to 2031 would increase by $54 billion if a $15 federal minimum was enacted because higher prices for goods and services would contribute to an increase in federal spending, the report found. Government spending on nutrition supplements would fall, but that would be offset by increased spending on Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits and health-care programs, the CBO said.

    The report found enrollment in Medicaid, health care for low-income Americans, would fall because many workers would earn more, but program costs would increase to higher prices for medical services.

    Economic output would be reduced slightly, primary because of decreased employment, CBO said.


    I have yet to hear anyone beside myself suggest a more flexible wage schedule.   My plan would be to increase minimum wage to a living wage for full-time workers and base that wage on cost of living according to where one lives (cost of living varies a great deal in varying parts of the country).  I would also give exceptions to minimum wage for students or elderly wanting a part-time job to make a little extra money or have something to do.  Why should a small business owner pay minimum wages to a senior who wants a part time job to supplement his or her retirement or social security or just to have something to give him or herself a sense of purpose?  Or to a student who just wants some work experience and some money to buy records and lattes?  I mean, seriously, it's very hard to keep a small business running as it it without having to deal with increased payroll given to people working who do not need a living wage.


    Why is this issue being looked at in black and white?  Why is there so little common sense being applied to this issue?  No wonder people get frustrated with government.
    mace1229 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    brianlux said:
    mrussel1 said:
    CBO releases analysis on $15 min wage by 2025.  It's a mixed bag.  Helps some but net job loss.  

    Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, from the current $7.25 an hour level, as President Biden has called for, would cut employment by 1.4 million and reduce the number of Americans below the poverty line by 900,000, according to a study released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday.

    The cumulative federal budget deficit from 2021 to 2031 would increase by $54 billion if a $15 federal minimum was enacted because higher prices for goods and services would contribute to an increase in federal spending, the report found. Government spending on nutrition supplements would fall, but that would be offset by increased spending on Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits and health-care programs, the CBO said.

    The report found enrollment in Medicaid, health care for low-income Americans, would fall because many workers would earn more, but program costs would increase to higher prices for medical services.

    Economic output would be reduced slightly, primary because of decreased employment, CBO said.


    I have yet to hear anyone beside myself suggest a more flexible wage schedule.   My plan would be to increase minimum wage to a living wage for full-time workers and base that wage on cost of living according to where one lives (cost of living varies a great deal in varying parts of the country).  I would also give exceptions to minimum wage for students or elderly wanting a part-time job to make a little extra money or have something to do.  Why should a small business owner pay minimum wages to a senior who wants a part time job to supplement his or her retirement or social security or just to have something to give him or herself a sense of purpose?  Or to a student who just wants some work experience and some money to buy records and lattes?  I mean, seriously, it's very hard to keep a small business running as it it without having to deal with increased payroll given to people working who do not need a living wage.


    Why is this issue being looked at in black and white?  Why is there so little common sense being applied to this issue?  No wonder people get frustrated with government.
    I'm a fan of indexed Min Wage.  Maybe something like 4 or 5 tiers based on the cost of living in an area.  You can't really do it at the state level because rural to urban is so different.  But it's a hard thing to do, it's hard to build and hard to manage.  I know there is a counter from Manchin out there for $11.  That's better than we have today and maybe not as disruptive as a huge jump to $15.
    I would be if it was more complex to include age or something else too. I'm not for a national "liveable wage" even if it is tiered. And nearly the entire argument against it is not everyone needs a liveable wage. But I never see that addressed. I have 8th graders asking me for work permits, do they need a salary or hourly wage that is enough to support a family? There is nothing wrong with paying a 14 year old with a 7th or 8th grade education, who is at their first job with little to no experience, half of what would be considered a liveable wage for an adult. To increase the minimum wage they should expand the student learner wage program that increase those exempt from a minimum wage. 
    Dear god this would be abused so bad.  No one would have jobs but seniors and students of a certain age that “don’t need” a livable wage.  Not to mention how stupid it would be if two people are doing the same job, cashier, line cook etc and one guy is 32 and makes 15 but the other guy is 65 or 18 and only makes 10 or whatever someone else decides is enough.  Holy moly that’s why we created minimum wage laws and unions in the first place, to not abuse the labor force...
    Haven't checked this thread in a few days, we've probably moved on. But there obviously would be abuse, that's why more regulations would be needed. Like only allowing a certain number of minors to be employed. A McDonald's shouldn't be run by a bunch of 14 year olds anyway. I don't see why it would be that difficult to stipulate that for every 10 employees, only 2 can be  exempt from minimum wage (such as under 18). That solves your problem. 

    But paying people on age already happens to some extent. Most places pay more if you have more experience and more education. So a 25 year old working the same job as a 14 year old will almost always be making more, even if they both are cashiers. You have 2 teachers teaching the same class at the same school, one is 22 and making 45k and the other 55 and making 90k. Same job. Yes, theoretically the older teacher with more experience is going to be a better teacher, but wouldn't also the 32 year old over the 14 year old at pretty much any job too? I would just never agree that a 14 year old at their first job needs $16/hr.
    Paying more due to experience and education is very different than paying more for age. If your hypothetical 55 year old teacher was at his or her first teaching job, then they get the starting salary, correct? 

    And most teens that I know who are working are saving up to pay university/college tuition fees, so your thoughts on whether they “need” the job or not are skewed. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 5,660
    edited February 12
    mace1229 said:
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    mrussel1 said:
    CBO releases analysis on $15 min wage by 2025.  It's a mixed bag.  Helps some but net job loss.  

    Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, from the current $7.25 an hour level, as President Biden has called for, would cut employment by 1.4 million and reduce the number of Americans below the poverty line by 900,000, according to a study released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday.

    The cumulative federal budget deficit from 2021 to 2031 would increase by $54 billion if a $15 federal minimum was enacted because higher prices for goods and services would contribute to an increase in federal spending, the report found. Government spending on nutrition supplements would fall, but that would be offset by increased spending on Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits and health-care programs, the CBO said.

    The report found enrollment in Medicaid, health care for low-income Americans, would fall because many workers would earn more, but program costs would increase to higher prices for medical services.

    Economic output would be reduced slightly, primary because of decreased employment, CBO said.


    I have yet to hear anyone beside myself suggest a more flexible wage schedule.   My plan would be to increase minimum wage to a living wage for full-time workers and base that wage on cost of living according to where one lives (cost of living varies a great deal in varying parts of the country).  I would also give exceptions to minimum wage for students or elderly wanting a part-time job to make a little extra money or have something to do.  Why should a small business owner pay minimum wages to a senior who wants a part time job to supplement his or her retirement or social security or just to have something to give him or herself a sense of purpose?  Or to a student who just wants some work experience and some money to buy records and lattes?  I mean, seriously, it's very hard to keep a small business running as it it without having to deal with increased payroll given to people working who do not need a living wage.


    Why is this issue being looked at in black and white?  Why is there so little common sense being applied to this issue?  No wonder people get frustrated with government.
    mace1229 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    brianlux said:
    mrussel1 said:
    CBO releases analysis on $15 min wage by 2025.  It's a mixed bag.  Helps some but net job loss.  

    Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, from the current $7.25 an hour level, as President Biden has called for, would cut employment by 1.4 million and reduce the number of Americans below the poverty line by 900,000, according to a study released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday.

    The cumulative federal budget deficit from 2021 to 2031 would increase by $54 billion if a $15 federal minimum was enacted because higher prices for goods and services would contribute to an increase in federal spending, the report found. Government spending on nutrition supplements would fall, but that would be offset by increased spending on Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits and health-care programs, the CBO said.

    The report found enrollment in Medicaid, health care for low-income Americans, would fall because many workers would earn more, but program costs would increase to higher prices for medical services.

    Economic output would be reduced slightly, primary because of decreased employment, CBO said.


    I have yet to hear anyone beside myself suggest a more flexible wage schedule.   My plan would be to increase minimum wage to a living wage for full-time workers and base that wage on cost of living according to where one lives (cost of living varies a great deal in varying parts of the country).  I would also give exceptions to minimum wage for students or elderly wanting a part-time job to make a little extra money or have something to do.  Why should a small business owner pay minimum wages to a senior who wants a part time job to supplement his or her retirement or social security or just to have something to give him or herself a sense of purpose?  Or to a student who just wants some work experience and some money to buy records and lattes?  I mean, seriously, it's very hard to keep a small business running as it it without having to deal with increased payroll given to people working who do not need a living wage.


    Why is this issue being looked at in black and white?  Why is there so little common sense being applied to this issue?  No wonder people get frustrated with government.
    I'm a fan of indexed Min Wage.  Maybe something like 4 or 5 tiers based on the cost of living in an area.  You can't really do it at the state level because rural to urban is so different.  But it's a hard thing to do, it's hard to build and hard to manage.  I know there is a counter from Manchin out there for $11.  That's better than we have today and maybe not as disruptive as a huge jump to $15.
    I would be if it was more complex to include age or something else too. I'm not for a national "liveable wage" even if it is tiered. And nearly the entire argument against it is not everyone needs a liveable wage. But I never see that addressed. I have 8th graders asking me for work permits, do they need a salary or hourly wage that is enough to support a family? There is nothing wrong with paying a 14 year old with a 7th or 8th grade education, who is at their first job with little to no experience, half of what would be considered a liveable wage for an adult. To increase the minimum wage they should expand the student learner wage program that increase those exempt from a minimum wage. 
    Dear god this would be abused so bad.  No one would have jobs but seniors and students of a certain age that “don’t need” a livable wage.  Not to mention how stupid it would be if two people are doing the same job, cashier, line cook etc and one guy is 32 and makes 15 but the other guy is 65 or 18 and only makes 10 or whatever someone else decides is enough.  Holy moly that’s why we created minimum wage laws and unions in the first place, to not abuse the labor force...
    Haven't checked this thread in a few days, we've probably moved on. But there obviously would be abuse, that's why more regulations would be needed. Like only allowing a certain number of minors to be employed. A McDonald's shouldn't be run by a bunch of 14 year olds anyway. I don't see why it would be that difficult to stipulate that for every 10 employees, only 2 can be  exempt from minimum wage (such as under 18). That solves your problem. 

    But paying people on age already happens to some extent. Most places pay more if you have more experience and more education. So a 25 year old working the same job as a 14 year old will almost always be making more, even if they both are cashiers. You have 2 teachers teaching the same class at the same school, one is 22 and making 45k and the other 55 and making 90k. Same job. Yes, theoretically the older teacher with more experience is going to be a better teacher, but wouldn't also the 32 year old over the 14 year old at pretty much any job too? I would just never agree that a 14 year old at their first job needs $16/hr.
    Paying more due to experience and education is very different than paying more for age. If your hypothetical 55 year old teacher was at his or her first teaching job, then they get the starting salary, correct? 

    And most teens that I know who are working are saving up to pay university/college tuition fees, so your thoughts on whether they “need” the job or not are skewed. 
    Yes, if that 55 year old was a first year teacher they’d be paid first year rates. But your argument was that a 14 year old and a 32 year old at the same job should get the same pay. I’m assuming that 32 year old has more education and more experience than the 14 year old. If a 32 year old has never had a job and has less than a 7th grade education, he’s probably special needs and there are programs for that. Otherwise he does deserve more pay. With 18 more years of life he’s probably picked up life skills, education, problem solving skills, etc that a 14 year old does not have. He’s worth more.
    A 14 year old is worth less. Less education, no work experience. Limited hours he can work. Depends on his mom for rides. And $8/hr is still a lot for most 14 year olds who’d otherwise be playing fortnight. If I had to pay them equal I’d never hire the 14 year old.
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,260
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    mrussel1 said:
    CBO releases analysis on $15 min wage by 2025.  It's a mixed bag.  Helps some but net job loss.  

    Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, from the current $7.25 an hour level, as President Biden has called for, would cut employment by 1.4 million and reduce the number of Americans below the poverty line by 900,000, according to a study released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday.

    The cumulative federal budget deficit from 2021 to 2031 would increase by $54 billion if a $15 federal minimum was enacted because higher prices for goods and services would contribute to an increase in federal spending, the report found. Government spending on nutrition supplements would fall, but that would be offset by increased spending on Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits and health-care programs, the CBO said.

    The report found enrollment in Medicaid, health care for low-income Americans, would fall because many workers would earn more, but program costs would increase to higher prices for medical services.

    Economic output would be reduced slightly, primary because of decreased employment, CBO said.


    I have yet to hear anyone beside myself suggest a more flexible wage schedule.   My plan would be to increase minimum wage to a living wage for full-time workers and base that wage on cost of living according to where one lives (cost of living varies a great deal in varying parts of the country).  I would also give exceptions to minimum wage for students or elderly wanting a part-time job to make a little extra money or have something to do.  Why should a small business owner pay minimum wages to a senior who wants a part time job to supplement his or her retirement or social security or just to have something to give him or herself a sense of purpose?  Or to a student who just wants some work experience and some money to buy records and lattes?  I mean, seriously, it's very hard to keep a small business running as it it without having to deal with increased payroll given to people working who do not need a living wage.


    Why is this issue being looked at in black and white?  Why is there so little common sense being applied to this issue?  No wonder people get frustrated with government.
    mace1229 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    brianlux said:
    mrussel1 said:
    CBO releases analysis on $15 min wage by 2025.  It's a mixed bag.  Helps some but net job loss.  

    Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, from the current $7.25 an hour level, as President Biden has called for, would cut employment by 1.4 million and reduce the number of Americans below the poverty line by 900,000, according to a study released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday.

    The cumulative federal budget deficit from 2021 to 2031 would increase by $54 billion if a $15 federal minimum was enacted because higher prices for goods and services would contribute to an increase in federal spending, the report found. Government spending on nutrition supplements would fall, but that would be offset by increased spending on Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits and health-care programs, the CBO said.

    The report found enrollment in Medicaid, health care for low-income Americans, would fall because many workers would earn more, but program costs would increase to higher prices for medical services.

    Economic output would be reduced slightly, primary because of decreased employment, CBO said.


    I have yet to hear anyone beside myself suggest a more flexible wage schedule.   My plan would be to increase minimum wage to a living wage for full-time workers and base that wage on cost of living according to where one lives (cost of living varies a great deal in varying parts of the country).  I would also give exceptions to minimum wage for students or elderly wanting a part-time job to make a little extra money or have something to do.  Why should a small business owner pay minimum wages to a senior who wants a part time job to supplement his or her retirement or social security or just to have something to give him or herself a sense of purpose?  Or to a student who just wants some work experience and some money to buy records and lattes?  I mean, seriously, it's very hard to keep a small business running as it it without having to deal with increased payroll given to people working who do not need a living wage.


    Why is this issue being looked at in black and white?  Why is there so little common sense being applied to this issue?  No wonder people get frustrated with government.
    I'm a fan of indexed Min Wage.  Maybe something like 4 or 5 tiers based on the cost of living in an area.  You can't really do it at the state level because rural to urban is so different.  But it's a hard thing to do, it's hard to build and hard to manage.  I know there is a counter from Manchin out there for $11.  That's better than we have today and maybe not as disruptive as a huge jump to $15.
    I would be if it was more complex to include age or something else too. I'm not for a national "liveable wage" even if it is tiered. And nearly the entire argument against it is not everyone needs a liveable wage. But I never see that addressed. I have 8th graders asking me for work permits, do they need a salary or hourly wage that is enough to support a family? There is nothing wrong with paying a 14 year old with a 7th or 8th grade education, who is at their first job with little to no experience, half of what would be considered a liveable wage for an adult. To increase the minimum wage they should expand the student learner wage program that increase those exempt from a minimum wage. 
    Dear god this would be abused so bad.  No one would have jobs but seniors and students of a certain age that “don’t need” a livable wage.  Not to mention how stupid it would be if two people are doing the same job, cashier, line cook etc and one guy is 32 and makes 15 but the other guy is 65 or 18 and only makes 10 or whatever someone else decides is enough.  Holy moly that’s why we created minimum wage laws and unions in the first place, to not abuse the labor force...
    Haven't checked this thread in a few days, we've probably moved on. But there obviously would be abuse, that's why more regulations would be needed. Like only allowing a certain number of minors to be employed. A McDonald's shouldn't be run by a bunch of 14 year olds anyway. I don't see why it would be that difficult to stipulate that for every 10 employees, only 2 can be  exempt from minimum wage (such as under 18). That solves your problem. 

    But paying people on age already happens to some extent. Most places pay more if you have more experience and more education. So a 25 year old working the same job as a 14 year old will almost always be making more, even if they both are cashiers. You have 2 teachers teaching the same class at the same school, one is 22 and making 45k and the other 55 and making 90k. Same job. Yes, theoretically the older teacher with more experience is going to be a better teacher, but wouldn't also the 32 year old over the 14 year old at pretty much any job too? I would just never agree that a 14 year old at their first job needs $16/hr.
    Paying more due to experience and education is very different than paying more for age. If your hypothetical 55 year old teacher was at his or her first teaching job, then they get the starting salary, correct? 

    And most teens that I know who are working are saving up to pay university/college tuition fees, so your thoughts on whether they “need” the job or not are skewed. 
    Yes, if that 55 year old was a first year teacher they’d be paid first year rates. But your argument was that a 14 year old and a 32 year old at the same job should get the same pay. I’m assuming that 32 year old has more education and more experience than the 14 year old. If a 32 year old has never had a job and has less than a 7th grade education, he’s probably special needs and there are programs for that. Otherwise he does deserve more pay. With 18 more years of life he’s probably picked up life skills, education, problem solving skills, etc that a 14 year old does not have. He’s worth more.
    A 14 year old is worth less. Less education, no work experience. Limited hours he can work. Depends on his mom for rides. And $8/hr is still a lot for most 14 year olds who’d otherwise be playing fortnight. If I had to pay them equal I’d never hire the 14 year old.
    But none of that is federally mandated.  Having different minimum wages for the old and young will never happen,  and shouldn't either. 
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 11,796
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    mrussel1 said:
    CBO releases analysis on $15 min wage by 2025.  It's a mixed bag.  Helps some but net job loss.  

    Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, from the current $7.25 an hour level, as President Biden has called for, would cut employment by 1.4 million and reduce the number of Americans below the poverty line by 900,000, according to a study released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday.

    The cumulative federal budget deficit from 2021 to 2031 would increase by $54 billion if a $15 federal minimum was enacted because higher prices for goods and services would contribute to an increase in federal spending, the report found. Government spending on nutrition supplements would fall, but that would be offset by increased spending on Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits and health-care programs, the CBO said.

    The report found enrollment in Medicaid, health care for low-income Americans, would fall because many workers would earn more, but program costs would increase to higher prices for medical services.

    Economic output would be reduced slightly, primary because of decreased employment, CBO said.


    I have yet to hear anyone beside myself suggest a more flexible wage schedule.   My plan would be to increase minimum wage to a living wage for full-time workers and base that wage on cost of living according to where one lives (cost of living varies a great deal in varying parts of the country).  I would also give exceptions to minimum wage for students or elderly wanting a part-time job to make a little extra money or have something to do.  Why should a small business owner pay minimum wages to a senior who wants a part time job to supplement his or her retirement or social security or just to have something to give him or herself a sense of purpose?  Or to a student who just wants some work experience and some money to buy records and lattes?  I mean, seriously, it's very hard to keep a small business running as it it without having to deal with increased payroll given to people working who do not need a living wage.


    Why is this issue being looked at in black and white?  Why is there so little common sense being applied to this issue?  No wonder people get frustrated with government.
    mace1229 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    brianlux said:
    mrussel1 said:
    CBO releases analysis on $15 min wage by 2025.  It's a mixed bag.  Helps some but net job loss.  

    Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, from the current $7.25 an hour level, as President Biden has called for, would cut employment by 1.4 million and reduce the number of Americans below the poverty line by 900,000, according to a study released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday.

    The cumulative federal budget deficit from 2021 to 2031 would increase by $54 billion if a $15 federal minimum was enacted because higher prices for goods and services would contribute to an increase in federal spending, the report found. Government spending on nutrition supplements would fall, but that would be offset by increased spending on Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits and health-care programs, the CBO said.

    The report found enrollment in Medicaid, health care for low-income Americans, would fall because many workers would earn more, but program costs would increase to higher prices for medical services.

    Economic output would be reduced slightly, primary because of decreased employment, CBO said.


    I have yet to hear anyone beside myself suggest a more flexible wage schedule.   My plan would be to increase minimum wage to a living wage for full-time workers and base that wage on cost of living according to where one lives (cost of living varies a great deal in varying parts of the country).  I would also give exceptions to minimum wage for students or elderly wanting a part-time job to make a little extra money or have something to do.  Why should a small business owner pay minimum wages to a senior who wants a part time job to supplement his or her retirement or social security or just to have something to give him or herself a sense of purpose?  Or to a student who just wants some work experience and some money to buy records and lattes?  I mean, seriously, it's very hard to keep a small business running as it it without having to deal with increased payroll given to people working who do not need a living wage.


    Why is this issue being looked at in black and white?  Why is there so little common sense being applied to this issue?  No wonder people get frustrated with government.
    I'm a fan of indexed Min Wage.  Maybe something like 4 or 5 tiers based on the cost of living in an area.  You can't really do it at the state level because rural to urban is so different.  But it's a hard thing to do, it's hard to build and hard to manage.  I know there is a counter from Manchin out there for $11.  That's better than we have today and maybe not as disruptive as a huge jump to $15.
    I would be if it was more complex to include age or something else too. I'm not for a national "liveable wage" even if it is tiered. And nearly the entire argument against it is not everyone needs a liveable wage. But I never see that addressed. I have 8th graders asking me for work permits, do they need a salary or hourly wage that is enough to support a family? There is nothing wrong with paying a 14 year old with a 7th or 8th grade education, who is at their first job with little to no experience, half of what would be considered a liveable wage for an adult. To increase the minimum wage they should expand the student learner wage program that increase those exempt from a minimum wage. 
    Dear god this would be abused so bad.  No one would have jobs but seniors and students of a certain age that “don’t need” a livable wage.  Not to mention how stupid it would be if two people are doing the same job, cashier, line cook etc and one guy is 32 and makes 15 but the other guy is 65 or 18 and only makes 10 or whatever someone else decides is enough.  Holy moly that’s why we created minimum wage laws and unions in the first place, to not abuse the labor force...
    Haven't checked this thread in a few days, we've probably moved on. But there obviously would be abuse, that's why more regulations would be needed. Like only allowing a certain number of minors to be employed. A McDonald's shouldn't be run by a bunch of 14 year olds anyway. I don't see why it would be that difficult to stipulate that for every 10 employees, only 2 can be  exempt from minimum wage (such as under 18). That solves your problem. 

    But paying people on age already happens to some extent. Most places pay more if you have more experience and more education. So a 25 year old working the same job as a 14 year old will almost always be making more, even if they both are cashiers. You have 2 teachers teaching the same class at the same school, one is 22 and making 45k and the other 55 and making 90k. Same job. Yes, theoretically the older teacher with more experience is going to be a better teacher, but wouldn't also the 32 year old over the 14 year old at pretty much any job too? I would just never agree that a 14 year old at their first job needs $16/hr.
    Paying more due to experience and education is very different than paying more for age. If your hypothetical 55 year old teacher was at his or her first teaching job, then they get the starting salary, correct? 

    And most teens that I know who are working are saving up to pay university/college tuition fees, so your thoughts on whether they “need” the job or not are skewed. 
    Yes, if that 55 year old was a first year teacher they’d be paid first year rates. But your argument was that a 14 year old and a 32 year old at the same job should get the same pay. I’m assuming that 32 year old has more education and more experience than the 14 year old. If a 32 year old has never had a job and has less than a 7th grade education, he’s probably special needs and there are programs for that. Otherwise he does deserve more pay. With 18 more years of life he’s probably picked up life skills, education, problem solving skills, etc that a 14 year old does not have. He’s worth more.
    A 14 year old is worth less. Less education, no work experience. Limited hours he can work. Depends on his mom for rides. And $8/hr is still a lot for most 14 year olds who’d otherwise be playing fortnight. If I had to pay them equal I’d never hire the 14 year old.

    Absolutely a 14 year old and a 32 year old doing the same job should get the same pay. If the job you are hiring for requires additional education and experience then by definition the 14 year old isn't qualified and can't do the job. Realistically, there are relatively few jobs that a 14 year is qualified for or even legally allowed to perform, but within those positions that they are eligible, they should be paid the same as any other person doing the job. What someone is "worth" is specific to that job, not all possible jobs.  A keen 14 year old in their first job may well be a better worker than a bored 32 year old who, for whatever reason, hasn't progressed beyond mowing lawns or making burgers. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 7,645
    edited February 12
    mace1229 said:
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    mrussel1 said:
    CBO releases analysis on $15 min wage by 2025.  It's a mixed bag.  Helps some but net job loss.  

    Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, from the current $7.25 an hour level, as President Biden has called for, would cut employment by 1.4 million and reduce the number of Americans below the poverty line by 900,000, according to a study released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday.

    The cumulative federal budget deficit from 2021 to 2031 would increase by $54 billion if a $15 federal minimum was enacted because higher prices for goods and services would contribute to an increase in federal spending, the report found. Government spending on nutrition supplements would fall, but that would be offset by increased spending on Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits and health-care programs, the CBO said.

    The report found enrollment in Medicaid, health care for low-income Americans, would fall because many workers would earn more, but program costs would increase to higher prices for medical services.

    Economic output would be reduced slightly, primary because of decreased employment, CBO said.


    I have yet to hear anyone beside myself suggest a more flexible wage schedule.   My plan would be to increase minimum wage to a living wage for full-time workers and base that wage on cost of living according to where one lives (cost of living varies a great deal in varying parts of the country).  I would also give exceptions to minimum wage for students or elderly wanting a part-time job to make a little extra money or have something to do.  Why should a small business owner pay minimum wages to a senior who wants a part time job to supplement his or her retirement or social security or just to have something to give him or herself a sense of purpose?  Or to a student who just wants some work experience and some money to buy records and lattes?  I mean, seriously, it's very hard to keep a small business running as it it without having to deal with increased payroll given to people working who do not need a living wage.


    Why is this issue being looked at in black and white?  Why is there so little common sense being applied to this issue?  No wonder people get frustrated with government.
    mace1229 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    brianlux said:
    mrussel1 said:
    CBO releases analysis on $15 min wage by 2025.  It's a mixed bag.  Helps some but net job loss.  

    Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, from the current $7.25 an hour level, as President Biden has called for, would cut employment by 1.4 million and reduce the number of Americans below the poverty line by 900,000, according to a study released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday.

    The cumulative federal budget deficit from 2021 to 2031 would increase by $54 billion if a $15 federal minimum was enacted because higher prices for goods and services would contribute to an increase in federal spending, the report found. Government spending on nutrition supplements would fall, but that would be offset by increased spending on Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits and health-care programs, the CBO said.

    The report found enrollment in Medicaid, health care for low-income Americans, would fall because many workers would earn more, but program costs would increase to higher prices for medical services.

    Economic output would be reduced slightly, primary because of decreased employment, CBO said.


    I have yet to hear anyone beside myself suggest a more flexible wage schedule.   My plan would be to increase minimum wage to a living wage for full-time workers and base that wage on cost of living according to where one lives (cost of living varies a great deal in varying parts of the country).  I would also give exceptions to minimum wage for students or elderly wanting a part-time job to make a little extra money or have something to do.  Why should a small business owner pay minimum wages to a senior who wants a part time job to supplement his or her retirement or social security or just to have something to give him or herself a sense of purpose?  Or to a student who just wants some work experience and some money to buy records and lattes?  I mean, seriously, it's very hard to keep a small business running as it it without having to deal with increased payroll given to people working who do not need a living wage.


    Why is this issue being looked at in black and white?  Why is there so little common sense being applied to this issue?  No wonder people get frustrated with government.
    I'm a fan of indexed Min Wage.  Maybe something like 4 or 5 tiers based on the cost of living in an area.  You can't really do it at the state level because rural to urban is so different.  But it's a hard thing to do, it's hard to build and hard to manage.  I know there is a counter from Manchin out there for $11.  That's better than we have today and maybe not as disruptive as a huge jump to $15.
    I would be if it was more complex to include age or something else too. I'm not for a national "liveable wage" even if it is tiered. And nearly the entire argument against it is not everyone needs a liveable wage. But I never see that addressed. I have 8th graders asking me for work permits, do they need a salary or hourly wage that is enough to support a family? There is nothing wrong with paying a 14 year old with a 7th or 8th grade education, who is at their first job with little to no experience, half of what would be considered a liveable wage for an adult. To increase the minimum wage they should expand the student learner wage program that increase those exempt from a minimum wage. 
    Dear god this would be abused so bad.  No one would have jobs but seniors and students of a certain age that “don’t need” a livable wage.  Not to mention how stupid it would be if two people are doing the same job, cashier, line cook etc and one guy is 32 and makes 15 but the other guy is 65 or 18 and only makes 10 or whatever someone else decides is enough.  Holy moly that’s why we created minimum wage laws and unions in the first place, to not abuse the labor force...
    Haven't checked this thread in a few days, we've probably moved on. But there obviously would be abuse, that's why more regulations would be needed. Like only allowing a certain number of minors to be employed. A McDonald's shouldn't be run by a bunch of 14 year olds anyway. I don't see why it would be that difficult to stipulate that for every 10 employees, only 2 can be  exempt from minimum wage (such as under 18). That solves your problem. 

    But paying people on age already happens to some extent. Most places pay more if you have more experience and more education. So a 25 year old working the same job as a 14 year old will almost always be making more, even if they both are cashiers. You have 2 teachers teaching the same class at the same school, one is 22 and making 45k and the other 55 and making 90k. Same job. Yes, theoretically the older teacher with more experience is going to be a better teacher, but wouldn't also the 32 year old over the 14 year old at pretty much any job too? I would just never agree that a 14 year old at their first job needs $16/hr.
    If the 14 year is going to attend college and get any form of post secondary education, that money would be put to good use. Sometimes it may be wasted, but that happens with 50 year olds so no reason to punish someone because of age either way. I still agree that it'd have to be universal. Restricting the amount of employees you can hire and pay that wage would be a mess.

    I can't believe anyone is for giving lower wages to someone doing the same job based on age. It already happens with race and sex and this would make it legal for ageism. Asinine.
    Post edited by tbergs on
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • static111static111 Posts: 2,234
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    honestly, i don't disagree with him. his last comment "it's like peeing on a forest fire" is spot on. 

    the CERB program in canada gives $500 per week for 28 weeks. that's $2K per month for 7 months. $1400 gives people the money to pay their hydro bill for a home they've already lost. it's absurd. 
    Yeah, he’s not wrong...
    I enjoy his podcast
    Yup, Ramsey is da man!
    He's a fucking tRumpster idiot.  He said that forgiving student loans wouldn't stimulate the economy unless people were planning on paying off their loans anyway.  Moronic.  
    Meh, I think he is spot on here on who would benefit from student loan forgiveness.  And he said “people planning on paying them off this year”.  At least don’t twist his words. If you think he is an idiot, odds are you are pretty poor with your finances.
    I don't know where he's getting his info from that only people with money have large student loan debt. that doesn't seem to make any sense. 
    It does make sense:
    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/10/09/who-owes-the-most-in-student-loans-new-data-from-the-fed/
    and:
    https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/which-households-hold-most-student-debt

    Higher income households do disproportionately owe more student loan debt than low income households, so in essence a student debt forgiveness program would disproportionately assist higher income households more than lower income households regarding overall $ amounts.
    In my opinion, you just need colleges to lower their tuition and fees dramatically to really assist low income households.  That way low income households may be able to afford to go into areas that require higher level degrees.  Who is going to try to be a doctor if they are looking at 100k debt?  The wealthy, that’s who (mostly I would say anyways).
    Stupid argument.  I could care less if “rich” people would benefit or benefit more from loan forgiveness.  The current student loan system is borderline criminal. Disproportionately helping “rich” student loan holders is no reason to not help everyone else. In my experience as a lower income individual in a mixed household with student debt, most of us low income people would welcome and probably feel the immediate benefits of debt relief at a greater rate than t be “high earners”. Not only that I have a handful of people in my life that if unburdened by monthly student loans with compounding interest would absolutely be homeowners.  Cancel the debt and then create a new and better system, how about zero interest loans if you finish your program or gain employment from schooling, why is the government in t he business of trying to make money off of students, especially when for most of us that come from poor, low income backgrounds t he only way to get the education we need is to take out loans.  
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,260
    static111 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    honestly, i don't disagree with him. his last comment "it's like peeing on a forest fire" is spot on. 

    the CERB program in canada gives $500 per week for 28 weeks. that's $2K per month for 7 months. $1400 gives people the money to pay their hydro bill for a home they've already lost. it's absurd. 
    Yeah, he’s not wrong...
    I enjoy his podcast
    Yup, Ramsey is da man!
    He's a fucking tRumpster idiot.  He said that forgiving student loans wouldn't stimulate the economy unless people were planning on paying off their loans anyway.  Moronic.  
    Meh, I think he is spot on here on who would benefit from student loan forgiveness.  And he said “people planning on paying them off this year”.  At least don’t twist his words. If you think he is an idiot, odds are you are pretty poor with your finances.
    I don't know where he's getting his info from that only people with money have large student loan debt. that doesn't seem to make any sense. 
    It does make sense:
    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/10/09/who-owes-the-most-in-student-loans-new-data-from-the-fed/
    and:
    https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/which-households-hold-most-student-debt

    Higher income households do disproportionately owe more student loan debt than low income households, so in essence a student debt forgiveness program would disproportionately assist higher income households more than lower income households regarding overall $ amounts.
    In my opinion, you just need colleges to lower their tuition and fees dramatically to really assist low income households.  That way low income households may be able to afford to go into areas that require higher level degrees.  Who is going to try to be a doctor if they are looking at 100k debt?  The wealthy, that’s who (mostly I would say anyways).
    Stupid argument.  I could care less if “rich” people would benefit or benefit more from loan forgiveness.  The current student loan system is borderline criminal. Disproportionately helping “rich” student loan holders is no reason to not help everyone else. In my experience as a lower income individual in a mixed household with student debt, most of us low income people would welcome and probably feel the immediate benefits of debt relief at a greater rate than t be “high earners”. Not only that I have a handful of people in my life that if unburdened by monthly student loans with compounding interest would absolutely be homeowners.  Cancel the debt and then create a new and better system, how about zero interest loans if you finish your program or gain employment from schooling, why is the government in t he business of trying to make money off of students, especially when for most of us that come from poor, low income backgrounds t he only way to get the education we need is to take out loans.  
    I'm inclined to support the waiving of loans for low income earners, for sure.  But that has to be determined after a period of time post education.  In other words, you can't say at 23 that they are low earner so waive the loan, because everyone is low earner at that age (maybe not everyone, but many).  So you would be incentivized not to get a good job for a few years coming out of school in order to waive the debt.  So there has to be some sort appropriate means testing.  Regarding your statement about the gov't making money, I'm not sure that's true. The federal interest rates are so low that they are probably losing money.  Remember the gov't pays interest on debt too.  
  • static111static111 Posts: 2,234
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    One effect that I've seen is forcing married people that both have student loans to file separately.  Or if one has loans and the other doesn't.  

    A joint return causes the minimum student loan payment to be higher which forces a couple to file separately in order to keep their payments low.  I advise against this as much as I can but they tend to look at it from a monthly cash flow perspective rather than the overall savings perspective.  Of course those people probably read Dave Ramsey so getting through is difficult.
    So you advise people to pay down student loans as quickly as possible and so does Ramsey...You may have more in common than you think.
    Still not going to hire you, though.
    Federal student loans have subsidized interest rates.  It's likely not better to pay them down sooner than later.  Private student loans are not, so that may make sense.  That sounds like dubious advice and it's also too general for most people.  I'm not opining on how a married couple should do it, which makes my point even more.  Advice from a celebrity is terrible.  
    The sooner you pay them off the sooner they stop accruing interest and if you can lower the principal the amount of interest accrued goes down.  It’s a stupid system and absolutely it helps to pay it down quicker especially if you don’t want to be paying it for life.
  • static111static111 Posts: 2,234
    PJPOWER said:
    I remember when my older daughter was in school and one of her roommates couldn't pay rent until her student loans went through.  She was financing everything.  That's a horrible spot to be in and horrible that the vampires were allowed to loan her the money to do it.

    Those are the kids that graduate with $80K in student loan debt.
    I had one of those roommates too.  Took out maximum student loans to pay for rent, food, etc.  He would sit around playing video games and eating all of our food while my other roommate and I worked our part time minimum wage jobs to pay for school.  He is still paying those off 20 years later!  He should have never been allowed to take out that kind of debt, as you said. 
    It was not his poverty that caused his problems, it was his work ethic...which was an issue when he actually had any job afterwards.
     Anecdotal example, I know, but it is a real tangible one that I have seen first hand.  The student loan program is shitty and preys on/enables poverty.
    Must have been nice going to school with the dinosaurs when a part time minimum wage job paid for school.  I worked 3 jobs and still had to take out loans, for a trade school program from the community college.   Helped my career, but in all t he amount I will end up paying on t he loan is double what I actually borrowed. And these are all federally subsidized 
  • static111static111 Posts: 2,234
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    honestly, i don't disagree with him. his last comment "it's like peeing on a forest fire" is spot on. 

    the CERB program in canada gives $500 per week for 28 weeks. that's $2K per month for 7 months. $1400 gives people the money to pay their hydro bill for a home they've already lost. it's absurd. 
    Yeah, he’s not wrong...
    I enjoy his podcast
    Yup, Ramsey is da man!
    He's a fucking tRumpster idiot.  He said that forgiving student loans wouldn't stimulate the economy unless people were planning on paying off their loans anyway.  Moronic.  
    Meh, I think he is spot on here on who would benefit from student loan forgiveness.  And he said “people planning on paying them off this year”.  At least don’t twist his words. If you think he is an idiot, odds are you are pretty poor with your finances.
    I don't know where he's getting his info from that only people with money have large student loan debt. that doesn't seem to make any sense. 
    It does make sense:
    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/10/09/who-owes-the-most-in-student-loans-new-data-from-the-fed/
    and:
    https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/which-households-hold-most-student-debt

    Higher income households do disproportionately owe more student loan debt than low income households, so in essence a student debt forgiveness program would disproportionately assist higher income households more than lower income households regarding overall $ amounts.
    In my opinion, you just need colleges to lower their tuition and fees dramatically to really assist low income households.  That way low income households may be able to afford to go into areas that require higher level degrees.  Who is going to try to be a doctor if they are looking at 100k debt?  The wealthy, that’s who (mostly I would say anyways).
    Stupid argument.  I could care less if “rich” people would benefit or benefit more from loan forgiveness.  The current student loan system is borderline criminal. Disproportionately helping “rich” student loan holders is no reason to not help everyone else. In my experience as a lower income individual in a mixed household with student debt, most of us low income people would welcome and probably feel the immediate benefits of debt relief at a greater rate than t be “high earners”. Not only that I have a handful of people in my life that if unburdened by monthly student loans with compounding interest would absolutely be homeowners.  Cancel the debt and then create a new and better system, how about zero interest loans if you finish your program or gain employment from schooling, why is the government in t he business of trying to make money off of students, especially when for most of us that come from poor, low income backgrounds t he only way to get the education we need is to take out loans.  
    I'm inclined to support the waiving of loans for low income earners, for sure.  But that has to be determined after a period of time post education.  In other words, you can't say at 23 that they are low earner so waive the loan, because everyone is low earner at that age (maybe not everyone, but many).  So you would be incentivized not to get a good job for a few years coming out of school in order to waive the debt.  So there has to be some sort appropriate means testing.  Regarding your statement about the gov't making money, I'm not sure that's true. The federal interest rates are so low that they are probably losing money.  Remember the gov't pays interest on debt too.  
    If long term I pay double what I initially borrowed, how is that not making money.   And yea I plan to privately refi after the 0% period we are going through now and once I see what plans if any are proposed for loan forgiveness.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,260
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    honestly, i don't disagree with him. his last comment "it's like peeing on a forest fire" is spot on. 

    the CERB program in canada gives $500 per week for 28 weeks. that's $2K per month for 7 months. $1400 gives people the money to pay their hydro bill for a home they've already lost. it's absurd. 
    Yeah, he’s not wrong...
    I enjoy his podcast
    Yup, Ramsey is da man!
    He's a fucking tRumpster idiot.  He said that forgiving student loans wouldn't stimulate the economy unless people were planning on paying off their loans anyway.  Moronic.  
    Meh, I think he is spot on here on who would benefit from student loan forgiveness.  And he said “people planning on paying them off this year”.  At least don’t twist his words. If you think he is an idiot, odds are you are pretty poor with your finances.
    I don't know where he's getting his info from that only people with money have large student loan debt. that doesn't seem to make any sense. 
    It does make sense:
    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/10/09/who-owes-the-most-in-student-loans-new-data-from-the-fed/
    and:
    https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/which-households-hold-most-student-debt

    Higher income households do disproportionately owe more student loan debt than low income households, so in essence a student debt forgiveness program would disproportionately assist higher income households more than lower income households regarding overall $ amounts.
    In my opinion, you just need colleges to lower their tuition and fees dramatically to really assist low income households.  That way low income households may be able to afford to go into areas that require higher level degrees.  Who is going to try to be a doctor if they are looking at 100k debt?  The wealthy, that’s who (mostly I would say anyways).
    Stupid argument.  I could care less if “rich” people would benefit or benefit more from loan forgiveness.  The current student loan system is borderline criminal. Disproportionately helping “rich” student loan holders is no reason to not help everyone else. In my experience as a lower income individual in a mixed household with student debt, most of us low income people would welcome and probably feel the immediate benefits of debt relief at a greater rate than t be “high earners”. Not only that I have a handful of people in my life that if unburdened by monthly student loans with compounding interest would absolutely be homeowners.  Cancel the debt and then create a new and better system, how about zero interest loans if you finish your program or gain employment from schooling, why is the government in t he business of trying to make money off of students, especially when for most of us that come from poor, low income backgrounds t he only way to get the education we need is to take out loans.  
    I'm inclined to support the waiving of loans for low income earners, for sure.  But that has to be determined after a period of time post education.  In other words, you can't say at 23 that they are low earner so waive the loan, because everyone is low earner at that age (maybe not everyone, but many).  So you would be incentivized not to get a good job for a few years coming out of school in order to waive the debt.  So there has to be some sort appropriate means testing.  Regarding your statement about the gov't making money, I'm not sure that's true. The federal interest rates are so low that they are probably losing money.  Remember the gov't pays interest on debt too.  
    If long term I pay double what I initially borrowed, how is that not making money.   And yea I plan to privately refi after the 0% period we are going through now and once I see what plans if any are proposed for loan forgiveness.
    It's just the concept of interest.  The gov't doesn't borrow money for free, so the question is whether they take a vig or margin on the interest that they pay to the bond holder, or however that is booked. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,260
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    One effect that I've seen is forcing married people that both have student loans to file separately.  Or if one has loans and the other doesn't.  

    A joint return causes the minimum student loan payment to be higher which forces a couple to file separately in order to keep their payments low.  I advise against this as much as I can but they tend to look at it from a monthly cash flow perspective rather than the overall savings perspective.  Of course those people probably read Dave Ramsey so getting through is difficult.
    So you advise people to pay down student loans as quickly as possible and so does Ramsey...You may have more in common than you think.
    Still not going to hire you, though.
    Federal student loans have subsidized interest rates.  It's likely not better to pay them down sooner than later.  Private student loans are not, so that may make sense.  That sounds like dubious advice and it's also too general for most people.  I'm not opining on how a married couple should do it, which makes my point even more.  Advice from a celebrity is terrible.  
    The sooner you pay them off the sooner they stop accruing interest and if you can lower the principal the amount of interest accrued goes down.  It’s a stupid system and absolutely it helps to pay it down quicker especially if you don’t want to be paying it for life.
    Yes, but you pay higher interest debts off first, that's the point.  Federal loans will be your lowest interest debt (unless you have some intro rate from another lender, but that would run out). Or if you have the discipline, you borrow the gov't money and invest on your own.  In other words if your student interest rate is 2%, don't pay that off.  Take that money and invest it in another way to earn a higher return. 
  • static111static111 Posts: 2,234
    edited February 12
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    One effect that I've seen is forcing married people that both have student loans to file separately.  Or if one has loans and the other doesn't.  

    A joint return causes the minimum student loan payment to be higher which forces a couple to file separately in order to keep their payments low.  I advise against this as much as I can but they tend to look at it from a monthly cash flow perspective rather than the overall savings perspective.  Of course those people probably read Dave Ramsey so getting through is difficult.
    So you advise people to pay down student loans as quickly as possible and so does Ramsey...You may have more in common than you think.
    Still not going to hire you, though.
    Federal student loans have subsidized interest rates.  It's likely not better to pay them down sooner than later.  Private student loans are not, so that may make sense.  That sounds like dubious advice and it's also too general for most people.  I'm not opining on how a married couple should do it, which makes my point even more.  Advice from a celebrity is terrible.  
    The sooner you pay them off the sooner they stop accruing interest and if you can lower the principal the amount of interest accrued goes down.  It’s a stupid system and absolutely it helps to pay it down quicker especially if you don’t want to be paying it for life.
    Yes, but you pay higher interest debts off first, that's the point.  Federal loans will be your lowest interest debt (unless you have some intro rate from another lender, but that would run out). Or if you have the discipline, you borrow the gov't money and invest on your own.  In other words if your student interest rate is 2%, don't pay that off.  Take that money and invest it in another way to earn a higher return. 
    I got my education at a bad time govt rates were 6%. The only debt my wife and I have is SL so naturally we aren’t worried about what has highest interest, but we do put more towards mine  with the 6% than hers with the 3.4%
    Post edited by static111 on
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,260
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    One effect that I've seen is forcing married people that both have student loans to file separately.  Or if one has loans and the other doesn't.  

    A joint return causes the minimum student loan payment to be higher which forces a couple to file separately in order to keep their payments low.  I advise against this as much as I can but they tend to look at it from a monthly cash flow perspective rather than the overall savings perspective.  Of course those people probably read Dave Ramsey so getting through is difficult.
    So you advise people to pay down student loans as quickly as possible and so does Ramsey...You may have more in common than you think.
    Still not going to hire you, though.
    Federal student loans have subsidized interest rates.  It's likely not better to pay them down sooner than later.  Private student loans are not, so that may make sense.  That sounds like dubious advice and it's also too general for most people.  I'm not opining on how a married couple should do it, which makes my point even more.  Advice from a celebrity is terrible.  
    The sooner you pay them off the sooner they stop accruing interest and if you can lower the principal the amount of interest accrued goes down.  It’s a stupid system and absolutely it helps to pay it down quicker especially if you don’t want to be paying it for life.
    Yes, but you pay higher interest debts off first, that's the point.  Federal loans will be your lowest interest debt (unless you have some intro rate from another lender, but that would run out). Or if you have the discipline, you borrow the gov't money and invest on your own.  In other words if your student interest rate is 2%, don't pay that off.  Take that money and invest it in another way to earn a higher return. 
    I got my education at a bad time govt rates were 6%. The only debt my wife and I have is SL so naturally we aren’t worried about what has highest interest, but we do put more towards mine  with the 6% than hers with the 3.4%
    Yeah, 6% is terrible for gov't.  I think they are underwriting at under 2% right now.  I had some small Stafford loans coming out of school and I think they were also at about 7%.  But that was in the 90's.  
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,053
    edited February 12
    static111 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    I remember when my older daughter was in school and one of her roommates couldn't pay rent until her student loans went through.  She was financing everything.  That's a horrible spot to be in and horrible that the vampires were allowed to loan her the money to do it.

    Those are the kids that graduate with $80K in student loan debt.
    I had one of those roommates too.  Took out maximum student loans to pay for rent, food, etc.  He would sit around playing video games and eating all of our food while my other roommate and I worked our part time minimum wage jobs to pay for school.  He is still paying those off 20 years later!  He should have never been allowed to take out that kind of debt, as you said. 
    It was not his poverty that caused his problems, it was his work ethic...which was an issue when he actually had any job afterwards.
     Anecdotal example, I know, but it is a real tangible one that I have seen first hand.  The student loan program is shitty and preys on/enables poverty.
    Must have been nice going to school with the dinosaurs when a part time minimum wage job paid for school.  I worked 3 jobs and still had to take out loans, for a trade school program from the community college.   Helped my career, but in all t he amount I will end up paying on t he loan is double what I actually borrowed. And these are all federally subsidized 
    It wasn’t “that” long ago.  But you are right and hit the nail on the head.  Since I graduated, the cost of college has risen dramatically!  I think that the reason for this is that they are being enabled to do this because of federal loans.  The college gets the money regardless of whether you pay the loan or not, so they have nothing to lose by upping their costs.  The only way you are going to see lower college debt AND lower college fees is by ending the federal student loan program or dramatically decrease the limit of how much debt can be taken out.  
    It should be a crime to send kids fresh out of high school into such massive debt...
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,053
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    One effect that I've seen is forcing married people that both have student loans to file separately.  Or if one has loans and the other doesn't.  

    A joint return causes the minimum student loan payment to be higher which forces a couple to file separately in order to keep their payments low.  I advise against this as much as I can but they tend to look at it from a monthly cash flow perspective rather than the overall savings perspective.  Of course those people probably read Dave Ramsey so getting through is difficult.
    So you advise people to pay down student loans as quickly as possible and so does Ramsey...You may have more in common than you think.
    Still not going to hire you, though.
    Federal student loans have subsidized interest rates.  It's likely not better to pay them down sooner than later.  Private student loans are not, so that may make sense.  That sounds like dubious advice and it's also too general for most people.  I'm not opining on how a married couple should do it, which makes my point even more.  Advice from a celebrity is terrible.  
    The sooner you pay them off the sooner they stop accruing interest and if you can lower the principal the amount of interest accrued goes down.  It’s a stupid system and absolutely it helps to pay it down quicker especially if you don’t want to be paying it for life.
    Yes, but you pay higher interest debts off first, that's the point.  Federal loans will be your lowest interest debt (unless you have some intro rate from another lender, but that would run out). Or if you have the discipline, you borrow the gov't money and invest on your own.  In other words if your student interest rate is 2%, don't pay that off.  Take that money and invest it in another way to earn a higher return. 
    Wow, you really are all about conning the system, ha. While this strategy is technically not illegal, I bet if people stat doing this in mass, lawmakers will put a stop to it.  Personally, I wish I didn’t have to pay any kind of social security because that money taken out of every paycheck could be invested and would earn so much more for retirement somewhere else.  
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,260
    PJPOWER said:
    static111 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    I remember when my older daughter was in school and one of her roommates couldn't pay rent until her student loans went through.  She was financing everything.  That's a horrible spot to be in and horrible that the vampires were allowed to loan her the money to do it.

    Those are the kids that graduate with $80K in student loan debt.
    I had one of those roommates too.  Took out maximum student loans to pay for rent, food, etc.  He would sit around playing video games and eating all of our food while my other roommate and I worked our part time minimum wage jobs to pay for school.  He is still paying those off 20 years later!  He should have never been allowed to take out that kind of debt, as you said. 
    It was not his poverty that caused his problems, it was his work ethic...which was an issue when he actually had any job afterwards.
     Anecdotal example, I know, but it is a real tangible one that I have seen first hand.  The student loan program is shitty and preys on/enables poverty.
    Must have been nice going to school with the dinosaurs when a part time minimum wage job paid for school.  I worked 3 jobs and still had to take out loans, for a trade school program from the community college.   Helped my career, but in all t he amount I will end up paying on t he loan is double what I actually borrowed. And these are all federally subsidized 
    It wasn’t “that” long ago.  But you are right and hit the nail on the head.  Since I graduated, the cost of college has risen dramatically!  I think that the reason for this is that they are being enabled to do this because of federal loans.  The college gets the money regardless of whether you pay the loan or not, so they have nothing to lose by upping their costs.  The only way you are going to see lower college debt AND lower college fees is by ending the federal student loan program or dramatically decrease the limit of how much debt can be taken out.  
    It should be a crime to send kids fresh out of high school into such massive debt...
    Are you advocating that school should be free, or that only those that can afford college from their parents, etc. get to go to school?
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,260
    edited February 12
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    One effect that I've seen is forcing married people that both have student loans to file separately.  Or if one has loans and the other doesn't.  

    A joint return causes the minimum student loan payment to be higher which forces a couple to file separately in order to keep their payments low.  I advise against this as much as I can but they tend to look at it from a monthly cash flow perspective rather than the overall savings perspective.  Of course those people probably read Dave Ramsey so getting through is difficult.
    So you advise people to pay down student loans as quickly as possible and so does Ramsey...You may have more in common than you think.
    Still not going to hire you, though.
    Federal student loans have subsidized interest rates.  It's likely not better to pay them down sooner than later.  Private student loans are not, so that may make sense.  That sounds like dubious advice and it's also too general for most people.  I'm not opining on how a married couple should do it, which makes my point even more.  Advice from a celebrity is terrible.  
    The sooner you pay them off the sooner they stop accruing interest and if you can lower the principal the amount of interest accrued goes down.  It’s a stupid system and absolutely it helps to pay it down quicker especially if you don’t want to be paying it for life.
    Yes, but you pay higher interest debts off first, that's the point.  Federal loans will be your lowest interest debt (unless you have some intro rate from another lender, but that would run out). Or if you have the discipline, you borrow the gov't money and invest on your own.  In other words if your student interest rate is 2%, don't pay that off.  Take that money and invest it in another way to earn a higher return. 
    Wow, you really are all about conning the system, ha. While this strategy is technically not illegal, I bet if people stat doing this in mass, lawmakers will put a stop to it.  Personally, I wish I didn’t have to pay any kind of social security because that money taken out of every paycheck could be invested and would earn so much more for retirement somewhere else.  
    That's a con?  Paying off higher interest debt first is a con to you?  You are seriously misguided.  Here's another example.  I could pay off my house in cash right now if I wanted to do so.  But that's stupid.  I have a 2.x% interest rate, so I'm borrowing money from Quicken dirt cheap.  Why would I pay that off?  I wouldn't.  I take excess cash and put that in the market and earn a higher return than what I'm paying in interest.  It's literally the most basic personal finance strategy out there.  
    Post edited by Kat on
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 25,314
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    One effect that I've seen is forcing married people that both have student loans to file separately.  Or if one has loans and the other doesn't.  

    A joint return causes the minimum student loan payment to be higher which forces a couple to file separately in order to keep their payments low.  I advise against this as much as I can but they tend to look at it from a monthly cash flow perspective rather than the overall savings perspective.  Of course those people probably read Dave Ramsey so getting through is difficult.
    So you advise people to pay down student loans as quickly as possible and so does Ramsey...You may have more in common than you think.
    Still not going to hire you, though.
    Federal student loans have subsidized interest rates.  It's likely not better to pay them down sooner than later.  Private student loans are not, so that may make sense.  That sounds like dubious advice and it's also too general for most people.  I'm not opining on how a married couple should do it, which makes my point even more.  Advice from a celebrity is terrible.  
    The sooner you pay them off the sooner they stop accruing interest and if you can lower the principal the amount of interest accrued goes down.  It’s a stupid system and absolutely it helps to pay it down quicker especially if you don’t want to be paying it for life.
    Yes, but you pay higher interest debts off first, that's the point.  Federal loans will be your lowest interest debt (unless you have some intro rate from another lender, but that would run out). Or if you have the discipline, you borrow the gov't money and invest on your own.  In other words if your student interest rate is 2%, don't pay that off.  Take that money and invest it in another way to earn a higher return. 
    Wow, you really are all about conning the system, ha. While this strategy is technically not illegal, I bet if people stat doing this in mass, lawmakers will put a stop to it.  Personally, I wish I didn’t have to pay any kind of social security because that money taken out of every paycheck could be invested and would earn so much more for retirement somewhere else.  
    investing intelligently is conning now?
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,053
    edited February 12
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    static111 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    I remember when my older daughter was in school and one of her roommates couldn't pay rent until her student loans went through.  She was financing everything.  That's a horrible spot to be in and horrible that the vampires were allowed to loan her the money to do it.

    Those are the kids that graduate with $80K in student loan debt.
    I had one of those roommates too.  Took out maximum student loans to pay for rent, food, etc.  He would sit around playing video games and eating all of our food while my other roommate and I worked our part time minimum wage jobs to pay for school.  He is still paying those off 20 years later!  He should have never been allowed to take out that kind of debt, as you said. 
    It was not his poverty that caused his problems, it was his work ethic...which was an issue when he actually had any job afterwards.
     Anecdotal example, I know, but it is a real tangible one that I have seen first hand.  The student loan program is shitty and preys on/enables poverty.
    Must have been nice going to school with the dinosaurs when a part time minimum wage job paid for school.  I worked 3 jobs and still had to take out loans, for a trade school program from the community college.   Helped my career, but in all t he amount I will end up paying on t he loan is double what I actually borrowed. And these are all federally subsidized 
    It wasn’t “that” long ago.  But you are right and hit the nail on the head.  Since I graduated, the cost of college has risen dramatically!  I think that the reason for this is that they are being enabled to do this because of federal loans.  The college gets the money regardless of whether you pay the loan or not, so they have nothing to lose by upping their costs.  The only way you are going to see lower college debt AND lower college fees is by ending the federal student loan program or dramatically decrease the limit of how much debt can be taken out.  
    It should be a crime to send kids fresh out of high school into such massive debt...
    Are you advocating that school should be free, or that only those that can afford college from their parents, etc. get to go to school?
    I’m not 100% sure what the answer is.  It is never going to be “fair” for everyone.  If you have the aptitude to go through college successfully, financial burdens should not be what hold you back.  I do believe that an educated society is a successful society, but maybe the idea of a formal “college” needs to be changed to get rid of the idea that a degree=aptitude/education.  I rarely use anything I learned in college in my career, my knowledge/education came from on the job experience, but boy does that degree hold weight when applying for jobs.  Maybe we need to change the way we are educating society as a whole...
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 11,492
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    static111 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    I remember when my older daughter was in school and one of her roommates couldn't pay rent until her student loans went through.  She was financing everything.  That's a horrible spot to be in and horrible that the vampires were allowed to loan her the money to do it.

    Those are the kids that graduate with $80K in student loan debt.
    I had one of those roommates too.  Took out maximum student loans to pay for rent, food, etc.  He would sit around playing video games and eating all of our food while my other roommate and I worked our part time minimum wage jobs to pay for school.  He is still paying those off 20 years later!  He should have never been allowed to take out that kind of debt, as you said. 
    It was not his poverty that caused his problems, it was his work ethic...which was an issue when he actually had any job afterwards.
     Anecdotal example, I know, but it is a real tangible one that I have seen first hand.  The student loan program is shitty and preys on/enables poverty.
    Must have been nice going to school with the dinosaurs when a part time minimum wage job paid for school.  I worked 3 jobs and still had to take out loans, for a trade school program from the community college.   Helped my career, but in all t he amount I will end up paying on t he loan is double what I actually borrowed. And these are all federally subsidized 
    It wasn’t “that” long ago.  But you are right and hit the nail on the head.  Since I graduated, the cost of college has risen dramatically!  I think that the reason for this is that they are being enabled to do this because of federal loans.  The college gets the money regardless of whether you pay the loan or not, so they have nothing to lose by upping their costs.  The only way you are going to see lower college debt AND lower college fees is by ending the federal student loan program or dramatically decrease the limit of how much debt can be taken out.  
    It should be a crime to send kids fresh out of high school into such massive debt...
    Are you advocating that school should be free, or that only those that can afford college from their parents, etc. get to go to school?
    I’m not 100% sure what the answer is.  It is never going to be “fair” for everyone.  If you have the aptitude to go through college successfully, financial burdens should not be what hold you back.  I do believe that an educated society is a successful society, but maybe the idea of a formal “college” needs to be changed to get rid of the idea that a degree=aptitude/education.  I rarely use anything I learned in college in my career, my knowledge/education came from on the job experience, but boy does that degree hold weight when applying for jobs.  Maybe we need to change the way we are educating society as a whole...
    We need to throw tons of money at education.  We are falling so far behind the rest of the civilized world yet the GOP won't allow it.
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,260
    edited February 12
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    One effect that I've seen is forcing married people that both have student loans to file separately.  Or if one has loans and the other doesn't.  

    A joint return causes the minimum student loan payment to be higher which forces a couple to file separately in order to keep their payments low.  I advise against this as much as I can but they tend to look at it from a monthly cash flow perspective rather than the overall savings perspective.  Of course those people probably read Dave Ramsey so getting through is difficult.
    So you advise people to pay down student loans as quickly as possible and so does Ramsey...You may have more in common than you think.
    Still not going to hire you, though.
    Federal student loans have subsidized interest rates.  It's likely not better to pay them down sooner than later.  Private student loans are not, so that may make sense.  That sounds like dubious advice and it's also too general for most people.  I'm not opining on how a married couple should do it, which makes my point even more.  Advice from a celebrity is terrible.  
    The sooner you pay them off the sooner they stop accruing interest and if you can lower the principal the amount of interest accrued goes down.  It’s a stupid system and absolutely it helps to pay it down quicker especially if you don’t want to be paying it for life.
    Yes, but you pay higher interest debts off first, that's the point.  Federal loans will be your lowest interest debt (unless you have some intro rate from another lender, but that would run out). Or if you have the discipline, you borrow the gov't money and invest on your own.  In other words if your student interest rate is 2%, don't pay that off.  Take that money and invest it in another way to earn a higher return. 
    Wow, you really are all about conning the system, ha. While this strategy is technically not illegal, I bet if people stat doing this in mass, lawmakers will put a stop to it.  Personally, I wish I didn’t have to pay any kind of social security because that money taken out of every paycheck could be invested and would earn so much more for retirement somewhere else.  
    That's a con?  Paying off higher interest debt first is a con to you?  You are seriously misguided.  Here's another example.  I could pay off my house in cash right now if I wanted to do so.  But that's stupid.  I have a 2.x% interest rate, so I'm borrowing money from Quicken dirt cheap.  Why would I pay that off?  I wouldn't.  I take excess cash and put that in the market and earn a higher return than what I'm paying in interest.  It's literally the most basic personal finance strategy out there.  
    I wasn’t talking about paying off your highest interest rates first, I was talking about using your student loans to buy stocks.  It’s borderline a con.  It’s a legal grey area that may get shut down if enough people abuse it.  From what I’ve read, the Department of Education may even sue you if they catch wind of the practice because it goes against the “intent” of the loan.  Mathematically, it is a sound thing to do, but morally and ethically...grey.  There are loans you can take out with no stipulations on how they are used, and ones that you can use specifically for investments.  
    I’m not saying “don’t do it”, but it really is just a loophole that may get shut down (all they would have to do is require receipts for loan $ used).  
    I sure wouldn’t be bragging about it on a public forum....

    You're showing your genius by the post. You're not using your student loan to buy stocks, rather not paying more than the minimum in order to invest in higher returning assets.  You always borrow money when the rate is below your anticipated ROI of the next option.  I heard there's a guy in the radio or podcast that might be able to help you. Or a douche politician (I know...redundant) can help you. 
    Post edited by Kat on
  • dankinddankind I am not your foot. Posts: 16,922
    I have more than a quarter-million dollars in student loan debt that my children will inherit. My wife and I file separately. If we didn't, we would almost certainly, considering family size et al., be below the poverty line on a monthly income basis.

    First and likely last college-educated member of my family.
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,053
    edited February 12
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    One effect that I've seen is forcing married people that both have student loans to file separately.  Or if one has loans and the other doesn't.  

    A joint return causes the minimum student loan payment to be higher which forces a couple to file separately in order to keep their payments low.  I advise against this as much as I can but they tend to look at it from a monthly cash flow perspective rather than the overall savings perspective.  Of course those people probably read Dave Ramsey so getting through is difficult.
    So you advise people to pay down student loans as quickly as possible and so does Ramsey...You may have more in common than you think.
    Still not going to hire you, though.
    Federal student loans have subsidized interest rates.  It's likely not better to pay them down sooner than later.  Private student loans are not, so that may make sense.  That sounds like dubious advice and it's also too general for most people.  I'm not opining on how a married couple should do it, which makes my point even more.  Advice from a celebrity is terrible.  
    The sooner you pay them off the sooner they stop accruing interest and if you can lower the principal the amount of interest accrued goes down.  It’s a stupid system and absolutely it helps to pay it down quicker especially if you don’t want to be paying it for life.
    Yes, but you pay higher interest debts off first, that's the point.  Federal loans will be your lowest interest debt (unless you have some intro rate from another lender, but that would run out). Or if you have the discipline, you borrow the gov't money and invest on your own.  In other words if your student interest rate is 2%, don't pay that off.  Take that money and invest it in another way to earn a higher return. 
    Wow, you really are all about conning the system, ha. While this strategy is technically not illegal, I bet if people stat doing this in mass, lawmakers will put a stop to it.  Personally, I wish I didn’t have to pay any kind of social security because that money taken out of every paycheck could be invested and would earn so much more for retirement somewhere else.  
    That's a con?   Paying off higher interest debt first is a con to you?  You are seriously misguided.  Here's another example.  I could pay off my house in cash right now if I wanted to do so.  But that's stupid.  I have a 2.x% interest rate, so I'm borrowing money from Quicken dirt cheap.  Why would I pay that off?  I wouldn't.  I take excess cash and put that in the market and earn a higher return than what I'm paying in interest.  It's literally the most basic personal finance strategy out there.  
    I wasn’t talking about paying off your highest interest rates first, I was talking about using your student loans to buy stocks.  It’s borderline a con.  It’s a legal grey area that may get shut down if enough people abuse it.  From what I’ve read, the Department of Education may even sue you if they catch wind of the practice because it goes against the “intent” of the loan.  Mathematically, it is a sound thing to do, but morally and ethically...grey.  There are loans you can take out with no stipulations on how they are used, and ones that you can use specifically for investments.  
    I’m not saying “don’t do it”, but it really is just a loophole that may get shut down (all they would have to do is require receipts for loan $ used).  
    I sure wouldn’t be bragging about it on a public forum....

    You're not using your student loan to buy stocks, rather not paying more than the minimum in order to invest in higher returning assets.  You always borrow money at when the rate is below your anticipated ROI of the next option.  I heard there's a guy in the radio or podcast that might be able to help you. 
    I misunderstood, I thought you were telling people to take out student loans to buy stocks.  If that isn’t what you meant, then I apologize.  
    Post edited by Kat on
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,260
    dankind said:
    I have more than a quarter-million dollars in student loan debt that my children will inherit. My wife and I file separately. If we didn't, we would almost certainly, considering family size et al., be below the poverty line on a monthly income basis.

    First and likely last college-educated member of my family.
    So you know,  your family has zero legal obligation to your debt. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,260
    edited February 12
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    One effect that I've seen is forcing married people that both have student loans to file separately.  Or if one has loans and the other doesn't.  

    A joint return causes the minimum student loan payment to be higher which forces a couple to file separately in order to keep their payments low.  I advise against this as much as I can but they tend to look at it from a monthly cash flow perspective rather than the overall savings perspective.  Of course those people probably read Dave Ramsey so getting through is difficult.
    So you advise people to pay down student loans as quickly as possible and so does Ramsey...You may have more in common than you think.
    Still not going to hire you, though.
    Federal student loans have subsidized interest rates.  It's likely not better to pay them down sooner than later.  Private student loans are not, so that may make sense.  That sounds like dubious advice and it's also too general for most people.  I'm not opining on how a married couple should do it, which makes my point even more.  Advice from a celebrity is terrible.  
    The sooner you pay them off the sooner they stop accruing interest and if you can lower the principal the amount of interest accrued goes down.  It’s a stupid system and absolutely it helps to pay it down quicker especially if you don’t want to be paying it for life.
    Yes, but you pay higher interest debts off first, that's the point.  Federal loans will be your lowest interest debt (unless you have some intro rate from another lender, but that would run out). Or if you have the discipline, you borrow the gov't money and invest on your own.  In other words if your student interest rate is 2%, don't pay that off.  Take that money and invest it in another way to earn a higher return. 
    Wow, you really are all about conning the system, ha. While this strategy is technically not illegal, I bet if people stat doing this in mass, lawmakers will put a stop to it.  Personally, I wish I didn’t have to pay any kind of social security because that money taken out of every paycheck could be invested and would earn so much more for retirement somewhere else.  
    That's a con?  What are you insane?  Paying off higher interest debt first is a con to you?  You are seriously misguided.  Here's another example.  I could pay off my house in cash right now if I wanted to do so.  But that's stupid.  I have a 2.x% interest rate, so I'm borrowing money from Quicken dirt cheap.  Why would I pay that off?  I wouldn't.  I take excess cash and put that in the market and earn a higher return than what I'm paying in interest.  It's literally the most basic personal finance strategy out there.  
    I wasn’t talking about paying off your highest interest rates first, I was talking about using your student loans to buy stocks.  It’s borderline a con.  It’s a legal grey area that may get shut down if enough people abuse it.  From what I’ve read, the Department of Education may even sue you if they catch wind of the practice because it goes against the “intent” of the loan.  Mathematically, it is a sound thing to do, but morally and ethically...grey.  There are loans you can take out with no stipulations on how they are used, and ones that you can use specifically for investments.  
    I’m not saying “don’t do it”, but it really is just a loophole that may get shut down (all they would have to do is require receipts for loan $ used).  
    I sure wouldn’t be bragging about it on a public forum....

    You're showing your genius by the post. You're not using your student loan to buy stocks, rather not paying more than the minimum in order to invest in higher returning assets.  You always borrow money at when the rate is below your anticipated ROI of the next option.  I heard there's a guy in the radio or podcast that might be able to help you. 
    I misunderstood, I thought you were telling people to take out student loans to buy stocks.  If that isn’t what you meant, then I apologize.  
    You can't take federal student loans without being enrolled or accepted in school.  It's part of the FAFSA process.  
    Post edited by Kat on
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,053
    mrussel1 said:
    dankind said:
    I have more than a quarter-million dollars in student loan debt that my children will inherit. My wife and I file separately. If we didn't, we would almost certainly, considering family size et al., be below the poverty line on a monthly income basis.

    First and likely last college-educated member of my family.
    So you know,  your family has zero legal obligation to your debt. 
    True for federal loans, but may or may not be the case if they are private loans.  
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,260
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dankind said:
    I have more than a quarter-million dollars in student loan debt that my children will inherit. My wife and I file separately. If we didn't, we would almost certainly, considering family size et al., be below the poverty line on a monthly income basis.

    First and likely last college-educated member of my family.
    So you know,  your family has zero legal obligation to your debt. 
    True for federal loans, but may or may not be the case if they are private loans.  
    Private loans are at market rates, and since they are unsecured and are usually loaned to individuals with shorter credit history, tend to have a pretty high interest rate.  You would never engage in a paydown strategy for private like you would for federal. 
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 7,645
    dankind said:
    I have more than a quarter-million dollars in student loan debt that my children will inherit. My wife and I file separately. If we didn't, we would almost certainly, considering family size et al., be below the poverty line on a monthly income basis.

    First and likely last college-educated member of my family.
    Wow, that is insane. Sorry to hear you had a bad experience with College education and a loan that is obviously not paying for itself professionally.
    It's a hopeless situation...
Sign In or Register to comment.