18 year olds. We don't consider them responsible enough to drink alcohol, yet we expect them to take on crippling amounts of life-long debt? We shouldn't. It's setting them, and society at large, for failure just to make a few quick bucks.
> And now, those same people see that others get benefits from not acting with the same responsibility.
For very different amounts of money. People who went to college 20 years ago paid less than half than folks who just graduated. 10 years ago was 75% of today. A lot of people are ignoring this fact.
Society is about helping everyone, not just a few individuals who an individual deems as "responsible".
It doesn't take that much debt at student loan interest rates to be "crushing" in this economy.
In my country, as in most of the world, 18 year olds can drink alcohol. They can also make many other life-altering decisions.
Given this apparent reality, what we're considering isn't whether or not to risk negatively impacting the existing incentive structure - which isn't producing an optimal outcome to begin with, but whether or not to assuage the suffering of a significant number of student loan holders. Would you prefer taking a purely moral stand for "personal responsibility" if it meant preventing a measure that could help lots of people live fuller lives and contribute to society at a higher level?
Interestingly you've ignored all of the societal benefits of subsidizing education for all of society's participants.
> The world would be a better place if everyone acted responsibly.
This is way too reductionist. Of course the world would be better if people would just all be personally more responsible. Most developed nations don't have the concept of crippling debt due to education cost. Are those nations being irresponsible too?
> People still decided to respect the words onto which they signed their name.
Sorry, are you defending predatory practices? Most government regulation that are almost universally agreed upon, even by stout libertarians, are making predatory practices illegal. In absolutely no world is a singular person, of any intelligence and experience, a match for a team of lawyers at multi-million or multi-billion dollar institutions. It is the same reason many dark patterns are illegal. Because if trickery is used then informed consent is not actually given. It is a situation that is near universally agreed upon as unfair. I'm sorry, you can't just hand wave predatory practices away. They are not okay. Talk about incentives. If you allow predatory practices to flourish you get Robber Barons. That's not healthy for an economy or a country's citizens either.
No, this is exactly the opposite.
The world would be a better place if everyone acted responsibly. People are willing to act responsibly in the form of paying back the money that they borrowed and said they would pay back. Even when in the environment of
> predatory student loans applied to people at a time where society yelled "get a college degree or you'll never get a good job
People still decided to respect the words onto which they signed their name.
And now, those same people see that others get benefits from not acting with the same responsibility.
It's a bug. Incentives should be aligned with the societally-beneficial behavior.
(I'm not an American, BTW. I'm not benefitting from this debt cancellation happening or not happening.)