Ben Shapiro Ripping on Millenals.

[Mai72]

Is he correct? He's making a blank statement, but is there some truth to what he is saying? I do know a few young people who love blaming the rich for their whoas. Especially those old rich white guys. Those guys are suspossedly the worst, and if they shared their wealth we would all be in a better place!

Thoughts?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

This will end well and in complete member agreeance...

 

[Rayman30]

Ben Shapiro... I call him BS for short, such a pretentious sophist.

 

[DigDog]

1. he is smart, and thinks things trough
2. he attacks parts of the left that i would as well, being a lefty
3. he is often just correct
4. sometimes he isn't
5. he has some dark religious streaks that occasionally come out

he's not a perfect person but i appreciate him.

 

[Brainonska511]

Yawn.... Someone complaining about "millennials". He should just piss off.

 

[repoman0]

Stopped reading at “blaming the rich for their whoas”

 

[Mai72]

Yawn.... Someone complaining about "millennials". He should just piss off.

Ben is a millennial himself.

I found this. Thought it was funny and sad at the same time. IMO, it's sad that this person is so distraught that he has to sue his roommate for watching a Ben Shapiro video. How sad that you can't just ignore the video. What's going to happen to this snowflake when he gets out in the real world? OMG, that guy looked at me weirdly. Should I sue? That lady was listening to a consertive talk host in her car. I'm offended! Should I sue?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/student-files-complaint-roommate-watching-ben-shapiro-video/

 

[brianmanahan]

i find it best to ignore people like this on both sides of an argument

they're really only doing it to make ad revenue and other related income

and they've found that the best way to do that is to generate a lot of views by any means necessary

(usually by presenting the world in black and white and making everything sound like an outrage)

 

[Fritzo]

Is he correct? He's making a blank statement, but is there some truth to what he is saying? I do know a few young people who love blaming the rich for their whoas. Especially those old rich white guys. Those guys are suspossedly the worst, and if they shared their wealth we would all be in a better place!

Thoughts?

Here's the deal- any pure economic system has inherent flaws that will eventually destroy it. The flaw of pure capitalism is the ability for a few to create machines that allow their creators to hoard wealth and deprive others. The game Monopoly is based on pure capitalism, and the end-game of that is one person is rich while everyone else is poor.

To counter this, taxation and different types of socialism are used (no, socialism isn't evil because it sounds like communism. There are over a dozen different types of socialism). Social programs are in place to provide care for the elderly, protection, and transportation. Taxation is supposed to prevent wealth hoarding. THIS is the area that's not working.

Right now, three people in the US have as much wealth as the lower 50% of the population. The top 400 richest people have more wealth than 66% of the population. In numbers, this means 3 people are richer than 150 million people COMBINED. 400 people are richer than 200 million people COMBINED. That money will never be returned or redestributed. The country's GDP will have to recreate that wealth so it could be distributed to the people. However this won't work because the rich have machines that continue to siphon everything towards them.

This is where a change in taxation needs to come into play. Under current tax laws, it's possible anyone making over $100 million a year can create so many tax shelters and take advantage of loopholes, they pay essentially no taxes...and they don't. They're supposed to be in 40%+ tax brackets, but the average $100M earner pays 0%-16%. This, in my opinion, is what is broken in our economy.

We're at a stage where we're not manufacturing anymore because other countries do it cheaper, most people are in unskilled service jobs, and those in high-end jobs are getting squeezed out by mega-corps and their money siphons.

If something doesn't change, all of this does not bode well. In 100 years, those Hunger Games movies might be more of a prophecy than a story.

 

[brianmanahan]

If something doesn't change, all of this does not bode well. In 100 years, those Hunger Games movies might be more of a prophecy than a story.

yeah honestly i think star trek's WW3 timeline prediction might not be too far off

 

[Mai72]

Here's the deal- any pure economic system has inherent flaws that will eventually destroy it. The flaw of pure capitalism is the ability for a few to create machines that allow their creators to hoard wealth and deprive others. The game Monopoly is based on pure capitalism, and the end-game of that is one person is rich while everyone else is poor.

To counter this, taxation and different types of socialism are used (no, socialism isn't evil because it sounds like communism. There are over a dozen different types of socialism). Social programs are in place to provide care for the elderly, protection, and transportation. Taxation is supposed to prevent wealth hoarding. THIS is the area that's not working.

Right now, three people in the US have as much wealth as the lower 50% of the population. The top 400 richest people have more wealth than 66% of the population. In numbers, this means 3 people are richer than 150 million people COMBINED. 400 people are richer than 200 million people COMBINED. That money will never be returned or redestributed. The country's GDP will have to recreate that wealth so it could be distributed to the people. However this won't work because the rich have machines that continue to siphon everything towards them.

This is where a change in taxation needs to come into play. Under current tax laws, it's possible anyone making over $100 million a year can create so many tax shelters and take advantage of loopholes, they pay essentially no taxes...and they don't. They're supposed to be in 40%+ tax brackets, but the average $100M earner pays 0%-16%. This, in my opinion, is what is broken in our economy.

We're at a stage where we're not manufacturing anymore because other countries do it cheaper, most people are in unskilled service jobs, and those in high-end jobs are getting squeezed out by mega-corps and their money siphons.

If something doesn't change, all of this does not bode well. In 100 years, those Hunger Games movies might be more of a prophecy than a story.

Maybe we should look at what we can control. For one, people are awful with money. People are on average making more money than they've ever made in the history of America. The average salary is $50k. Many are making $100k a year and are still in debt! How many Americans read books on finances? How many are willing to do what it takes to make it work? Again, look at the habits of the average American. YouTube for hours on end. Video games. Netflix for 30 hours a week. Average TV viewing is 4 plus hours a day. This is how I look at what you're saying. I can't change what the uppee 3 have. They have control over muich of the wealth. I can't control that. But, can I control my own financial path. And, the answer is YES. So, I'll never generate $500B. I don't care. Instead, can I invest and build up to $1m. That's possible. Then I look at what needs to go. I don't watch TV. Gone. Video games. Gone. Netflix. Gone. And so on. I'm trying to take RESPONSIBILITY for my actions. It's hard though, and few people are willing to do it. Yes, there are issues that need to be addressed. I'm not the man whose going to do it. Instead, I'll see the world for how it is and act accordingly. I'm going to take the red pill. Life is incredibly unfair. When you can understand that and let it land then you can move on. People are very good at making excuses. I was one of them until I got fed up. I'm curently trying to change my financial circumstance, and again. It's hard!

Finally, Dave's Ramsey and Chris Hogan interviewed Millionaires. What they found that most of them are average people. The difference is they read books on finances. They invested in themselves, and they invested/saved most of their money. Average people.

Top Threee Millionaires. Average People.

1) Accountants
2) Engineers
3) Teachers

 

[Brainonska511]

Ben is a millennial himself.

So? That doesn't mean shit.

I found this. Thought it was funny and sad at the same time. IMO, it's sad that this person is so distraught that he has to sue his roommate for watching a Ben Shapiro video. How sad that you can't just ignore the video. What's going to happen to this snowflake when he gets out in the real world? OMG, that guy looked at me weirdly. Should I sue? That lady was listening to a consertive talk host in her car. I'm offended! Should I sue?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/student-files-complaint-roommate-watching-ben-shapiro-video/

The National Review, that's a totally non-biased source. National Review, Ben Shapiro, ... I'm starting to see a pattern here.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

i find it best to ignore people like this on both sides of an argument

they're really only doing it to make ad revenue and other related income

and they've found that the best way to do that is to generate a lot of views by any means necessary

(usually by presenting the world in black and white and making everything sound like an outrage)

Say whaaaaat? These kinds of titles don't seem click-baity to me.


Ben Shapiro DESTROYS the millenial left! Watch now!

Alexandria Ocazio Cortezzzz SHUTS DOWN the racist Alt-Right on Twatter!

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Here's the deal- any pure economic system has inherent flaws that will eventually destroy it. The flaw of pure capitalism is the ability for a few to create machines that allow their creators to hoard wealth and deprive others. The game Monopoly is based on pure capitalism, and the end-game of that is one person is rich while everyone else is poor.

To counter this, taxation and different types of socialism are used (no, socialism isn't evil because it sounds like communism. There are over a dozen different types of socialism). Social programs are in place to provide care for the elderly, protection, and transportation. Taxation is supposed to prevent wealth hoarding. THIS is the area that's not working.

Right now, three people in the US have as much wealth as the lower 50% of the population. The top 400 richest people have more wealth than 66% of the population. In numbers, this means 3 people are richer than 150 million people COMBINED. 400 people are richer than 200 million people COMBINED. That money will never be returned or redestributed. The country's GDP will have to recreate that wealth so it could be distributed to the people. However this won't work because the rich have machines that continue to siphon everything towards them.

This is where a change in taxation needs to come into play. Under current tax laws, it's possible anyone making over $100 million a year can create so many tax shelters and take advantage of loopholes, they pay essentially no taxes...and they don't. They're supposed to be in 40%+ tax brackets, but the average $100M earner pays 0%-16%. This, in my opinion, is what is broken in our economy.

We're at a stage where we're not manufacturing anymore because other countries do it cheaper, most people are in unskilled service jobs, and those in high-end jobs are getting squeezed out by mega-corps and their money siphons.

If something doesn't change, all of this does not bode well. In 100 years, those Hunger Games movies might be more of a prophecy than a story.

Right, which is why we have a progressive tax system. There are "checks and balances on capitalism" related socialism, and then there are full blown socialist folks who really think the government would do better at running things - and saying "Free this. Free that." I mean just look at our student debt crisis - 1.3trillion last I saw... And we have inept little kids saying that college should be free? These kids are just nuts and out of touch with reality.

Plus - I would honestly argue that we aren't pure capitalism - because pure capitalism would have checks and balances. The number of mergers and acquisitions I've seen that should be a VERY CLEAR NO are going through under all parties. I mean things like Airlines and Cable companies - regardless of what it is should be an automated NO stamp.


As far as taxation, were already at a point where the top 10% pay over 90% of the federal income taxes. You can argue that it's because of wealth disparity - which is a fine argument to make.. But my end point here is that you can just continue to tax the rich, tax the rich, tax them more, they aren't paying enough.Unlike the poor - the rich CAN get up and leave. They don't have to accept it. We are living in a world where getting up and moving to another country is more than possible.

Plus I love the concept of idolizing more socialist countries like European ones. They are some of the most regressive taxation in the world lol. What do you think VAT taxes are? Plus their income taxes are way more stringent on the lower and middle classes.

 

[Fritzo]

Maybe we should look at what we can control. For one, people are awful with money. People are on average making more money than they've ever made in the history of America. The average salary is $50k. Many are making $100k a year and are still in debt! How many Americans read books on finances? How many are willing to do what it takes to make it work? Again, look at the habits of the average American. YouTube for hours on end. Video games. Netflix for 30 hours a week. Average TV viewing is 4 plus hours a day. This is how I look at what you're saying. I can't change what the uppee 3 have. They have control over muich of the wealth. I can't control that. But, can I control my own financial path. And, the answer is YES. So, I'll never generate $500B. I don't care. Instead, can I invest and build up to $1m. That's possible. Then I look at what needs to go. I don't watch TV. Gone. Video games. Gone. Netflix. Gone. And so on. I'm trying to take RESPONSIBILITY for my actions. It's hard though, and few people are willing to do it. Yes, there are issues that need to be addressed. I'm not the man whose going to do it. Instead, I'll see the world for how it is and act accordingly. I'm going to take the red pill. Life is incredibly unfair. When you can understand that and let it land then you can move on. People are very good at making excuses. I was one of them until I got fed up. I'm curently trying to change my financial circumstance, and again. It's hard!

Finally, Dave's Ramsey and Chris Hogan interviewed Millionaires. What they found that most of them are average people. The difference is they read books on finances. They invested in themselves, and they invested/saved most of their money. Average people.

Top Threee Millionaires. Average People.

1) Accountants
2) Engineers
3) Teachers

Purchasing power isn't as high as it was in the 80's and 90's.

Right, which is why we have a progressive tax system. There are "checks and balances on capitalism" related socialism, and then there are full blown socialist folks who really think the government would do better at running things - and saying "Free this. Free that." I mean just look at our student debt crisis - 1.3trillion last I saw... And we have inept little kids saying that college should be free? These kids are just nuts and out of touch with reality.

Plus - I would honestly argue that we aren't pure capitalism - because pure capitalism would have checks and balances. The number of mergers and acquisitions I've seen that should be a VERY CLEAR NO are going through under all parties. I mean things like Airlines and Cable companies - regardless of what it is should be an automated NO stamp.


As far as taxation, were already at a point where the top 10% pay over 90% of the federal income taxes. You can argue that it's because of wealth disparity - which is a fine argument to make.. But my end point here is that you can just continue to tax the rich, tax the rich, tax them more, they aren't paying enough.Unlike the poor - the rich CAN get up and leave. They don't have to accept it. We are living in a world where getting up and moving to another country is more than possible.

Plus I love the concept of idolizing more socialist countries like European ones. They are some of the most regressive taxation in the world lol. What do you think VAT taxes are? Plus their income taxes are way more stringent on the lower and middle classes.

The mega-rich pay a lot of money in taxes, but it's a tiny amount compared to their earnings. It's difficult to comprehend how much money a billion dollars is, much less 10-20 billion. Many mega-rich are actually ASKING to be taxed more: https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresa...the-rich-want-to-pay-more-taxes/#4905b0656cf9

Also, as far as education goes, I DO believe higher education should be publicly funded. We have public grade school and high school because those were required for employment. Now most employers require a 4 year degree...so we're funding 2/3 of the requirements for meaningful employment....why not 3/3?

My son started college last year. He's going to the most affordable major college in the state, he lives at home, and has a 65% scholarship---we still have to pay $1000/month for tuition! THAT'S INSANE. I went to that same school 20 years ago and a 4 year degree cost about $8000 total. It's no wonder kids have it so hard today- they have to essentially buy the equivalent of a house mortgage while in school so they can get a job and spend a decade+ to pay it off. That shouldn't be. It's as if they're trying to make education as inaccessible as possible to keep people "in their place."

 

[K1052]

As far as taxation, were already at a point where the top 10% pay over 90% of the federal income taxes. You can argue that it's because of wealth disparity - which is a fine argument to make.. But my end point here is that you can just continue to tax the rich, tax the rich, tax them more, they aren't paying enough.Unlike the poor - the rich CAN get up and leave. They don't have to accept it. We are living in a world where getting up and moving to another country is more than possible.

Top marginal rates are historically low. Wealth concentration is high and increasing. Moving back to previous levels of both won't cause (most) of the wealthy to flee. This is preposterous.

Also I can think of few places they would flee to that they'd encounter a more generous tax code while maintaining the lifestyles they want. They are creatures of habit just like anybody else and not prone to uprooting themselves from routines. If the rich (and I mean ultra wealthy) were going to abandon high tax places they'd all be out of CA and NY already.

 

[Skel]

I've only seen a few of these videos but I've noticed most of them follow the same pattern of him telling you it's outrage by asserting a 'this is how it used to be' that isn't based in any factual reality. In the beginning of the video he states,

"If you go back 50 years by the age of 26 you were supposed to be fully ensconced in your job, you’re supposed to have 3 kids by that point."

In 1969 this wasn't the case, hell we had the hippie movement, and unemployment that I've seen talked about to this day, "lowest since 1969". If he's just generalizing the dates, I'm still not sure when he's talking about. I'm pretty sure that this magic time never really existed past people romanticizing the good old days. I guess you need to set the stage if you're trying to push the idea that the 'left' is now trying to 'extend adolescent' and that's something we all must get outrage over. I do find it odd that for a guy that keeps saying "Facts don't care about feelings", he seems to keep pushing a feeling of a time rather than a factual one.

 

[Fritzo]

Maybe we should look at what we can control. For one, people are awful with money. People are on average making more money than they've ever made in the history of America. The average salary is $50k. Many are making $100k a year and are still in debt! How many Americans read books on finances? How many are willing to do what it takes to make it work? Again, look at the habits of the average American. YouTube for hours on end. Video games. Netflix for 30 hours a week. Average TV viewing is 4 plus hours a day. This is how I look at what you're saying. I can't change what the uppee 3 have. They have control over muich of the wealth. I can't control that. But, can I control my own financial path. And, the answer is YES. So, I'll never generate $500B. I don't care. Instead, can I invest and build up to $1m. That's possible. Then I look at what needs to go. I don't watch TV. Gone. Video games. Gone. Netflix. Gone. And so on. I'm trying to take RESPONSIBILITY for my actions. It's hard though, and few people are willing to do it. Yes, there are issues that need to be addressed. I'm not the man whose going to do it. Instead, I'll see the world for how it is and act accordingly. I'm going to take the red pill. Life is incredibly unfair. When you can understand that and let it land then you can move on. People are very good at making excuses. I was one of them until I got fed up. I'm curently trying to change my financial circumstance, and again. It's hard!

Finally, Dave's Ramsey and Chris Hogan interviewed Millionaires. What they found that most of them are average people. The difference is they read books on finances. They invested in themselves, and they invested/saved most of their money. Average people.

Top Threee Millionaires. Average People.

1) Accountants
2) Engineers
3) Teachers

A millionaire isn't really "rich" anymore. I recently read you would need $4 million invested in order to live off the interest in middle class. It's actually fairly easy to reach a million dollars, but it also you much spend a large fraction of your life living like a pauper and depriving yourself. There's a balance there, but it's not as easy as it used to be.

 

[Fritzo]

I've only seen a few of these videos but I've noticed most of them follow the same pattern of him telling you it's outrage by asserting a 'this is how it used to be' that isn't based in any factual reality. In the beginning of the video he states,

"If you go back 50 years by the age of 26 you were supposed to be fully ensconced in your job, you’re supposed to have 3 kids by that point."

In 1969 this wasn't the case, hell we had the hippie movement, and unemployment that I've seen talked about to this day, "lowest since 1969". If he's just generalizing the dates, I'm still not sure when he's talking about. I'm pretty sure that this magic time never really existed past people romanticizing the good old days. I guess you need to set the stage if you're trying to push the idea that the 'left' is now trying to 'extend adolescent' and that's something we all must get outrage over. I do find it odd that for a guy that keeps saying "Facts don't care about feelings", he seems to keep pushing a feeling of a time rather than a factual one.

In the 50s, we had taxation on the wealthy as high as 90%, and it was the most prosperous period in American history. Reaganomics changed that tax structure with "trickle down economics"...the theory that corporations would take excess profits made from lower taxes and raise wages/invest in infrastructure.

It failed.

Now it's 2019 and last year they passed the exact same tax reform. MORONS.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

In the 50s, we had taxation on the wealthy as high as 90%, and it was the most prosperous period in American history. Reaganomics changed that tax structure with "trickle down economics"...the theory that corporations would take excess profits made from lower taxes and raise wages/invest in infrastructure.

It failed.

Now it's 2019 and last year they passed the exact same tax reform. MORONS.

Having a 90% tax bracket doesn't serve much of a purpose (Read: None) if it isn't paid.

No one paid 90%, nor anything close to it. We can make a 99.9% tax bracket on income over $2 trillion, that doesn't mean it is being paid.

See: https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

 

[destrekor]

Having a 90% tax bracket doesn't serve much of a purpose (Read: None) if it isn't paid.

No one paid 90%, nor anything close to it. We can make a 99.9% tax bracket on income over $2 trillion, that doesn't mean it is being paid.

See: https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

What you are missing is what happened to all that money: it was donated to non-profits, to public works projects, to colleges, etc.

Wages were generally kept higher throughout the company, and executives were perhaps compensated heavily but in the end a a large portion of wages that would put them too deep over the top bracket were often donated to offset taxes and keep themselves out of the highest brackets. While it looks like a cunning trick to skirt the government though, what it really represents is a win/win for society at large. Government would get roughly the same amount of taxes, but a lot more money would still get to the public in other ways. That was the true trickle down. Now the brackets are so grossly out of touch that their are trillions just sitting untouched, unused, helping some to amass yet more wealth, when instead those excess funds would likely be immediately put to work for non-profits if it meant not only evading the top brackets but also getting a break on the rest of their income. They still get to invest ungodly amounts, it's the grains, wages, and distributions that get taxed.

And with the excess cash that the large corporations are now likely to hang onto (because if paid to execs it just gets donated), they will also be more likely to provide more comprehensive benefits. There are tricky ways around paying Uncle Sam more than necessary, but in doing so they still willingly give the public very generous benefits and gifts.

As the rich were allowed to amass yet more annual wealth growth with little taxation to worry about, all of that started to change. Benefits weakened or didn't keep pace with comparable global businesses, wage growth for execs went astronomical while anyone not a exec saw wage growth stagnate for decades to the point there became a disgusting disparity.

The government knew what it was doing with high tax rates. And it has also known what it was doing by lowering the tax rates. The latter is just downright evil but they make it sound so patriotic.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

What you are missing is what happened to all that money: it was donated to non-profits, to public works projects, to colleges, etc.

Wages were generally kept higher throughout the company, and executives were perhaps compensated heavily but in the end a a large portion of wages that would put them too deep over the top bracket were often donated to offset taxes and keep themselves out of the highest brackets. While it looks like a cunning trick to skirt the government though, what it really represents is a win/win for society at large. Government would get roughly the same amount of taxes, but a lot more money would still get to the public in other ways. That was the true trickle down. Now the brackets are so grossly out of touch that their are trillions just sitting untouched, unused, helping some to amass yet more wealth, when instead those excess funds would likely be immediately put to work for non-profits if it meant not only evading the top brackets but also getting a break on the rest of their income. They still get to invest ungodly amounts, it's the grains, wages, and distributions that get taxed.

And with the excess cash that the large corporations are now likely to hang onto (because if paid to execs it just gets donated), they will also be more likely to provide more comprehensive benefits. There are tricky ways around paying Uncle Sam more than necessary, but in doing so they still willingly give the public very generous benefits and gifts.

As the rich were allowed to amass yet more annual wealth growth with little taxation to worry about, all of that started to change. Benefits weakened or didn't keep pace with comparable global businesses, wage growth for execs went astronomical while anyone not a exec saw wage growth stagnate for decades to the point there became a disgusting disparity.

The government knew what it was doing with high tax rates. And it has also known what it was doing by lowering the tax rates. The latter is just downright evil but they make it sound so patriotic.

Mind citing some evidence behind your assertions?

Not here to act as if it's not possible, However it just seems like a pipe dream to me to think people did massive donations to circumvent the tax rates.

That, and putting money in a personal non profit isn't the same thing either.

 

[Aikouka]

The game Monopoly is based on pure capitalism, and the end-game of that is one person is rich while everyone else is poor.

Well, actually, it's kind of interesting that Monopoly was originally a game made to teach socialism. Some dude took the game, reworked the rules, and sold it to Parker Brothers. Parker Brothers then bought the rights off the original creator (since the other dude didn't really have them) and scrapped the original socialist rules in favor of the capitalist ones.

I mean just look at our student debt crisis - 1.3trillion last I saw... And we have inept little kids saying that college should be free? These kids are just nuts and out of touch with reality.

Can you blame students for being mad? I grew up in the 90's, and you wouldn't believe how much college was rammed down your throat. It wasn't pushed so much as an option, but rather the next step in your education and future. (This all likely stemming from a push to enlighten and educate our young adults to better fend off the threat of The Red.)

So, here's what ended up happening. You had a bunch of kids that weren't even of legal age to make decisions like voting or enlisting, but they were pushed to decide something relatively important like... what to do with the rest of their life. Of course, with the price of school, people end up taking out student loans, which are stupidly easy to get given the federal backing and the inability to shed the debt in bankruptcy. This reduction in risk was meant to help people go to school, but of course, it also provided a low risk method for easy money for lenders.

Here's the thing... I don't want to see free college. I don't want to see debt forgiveness. Well, to be clear, what I mean is that these aren't fixes. You're cutting off the head of a hydra thinking it will slay the beast, but more heads are just going to grow back. I don't want free college because our secondary education is already under-funded, and how do we expect students to excel at post-secondary education if we can't even get the prior stage right? Anyway, what I'd like to see is tackling the actual problems that caused the student debt issues.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Can you blame students for being mad? I grew up in the 90's, and you wouldn't believe how much college was rammed down your throat. It wasn't pushed so much as an option, but rather the next step in your education and future. (This all likely stemming from a push to enlighten and educate our young adults to better fend off the threat of The Red.)

So, here's what ended up happening. You had a bunch of kids that weren't even of legal age to make decisions like voting or enlisting, but they were pushed to decide something relatively important like... what to do with the rest of their life. Of course, with the price of school, people end up taking out student loans, which are stupidly easy to get given the federal backing and the inability to shed the debt in bankruptcy. This reduction in risk was meant to help people go to school, but of course, it also provided a low risk method for easy money for lenders.

Here's the thing... I don't want to see free college. I don't want to see debt forgiveness. Well, to be clear, what I mean is that these aren't fixes. You're cutting off the head of a hydra thinking it will slay the beast, but more heads are just going to grow back. I don't want free college because our secondary education is already under-funded, and how do we expect students to excel at post-secondary education if we can't even get the prior stage right? Anyway, what I'd like to see is tackling the actual problems that caused the student debt issues.

Yes, I kinda can blame kids for being mad. Honestly? By 18 I would really think the majority of kids can make a reasonable, sane, and rational thought process. Maybe it's just because I was the type that went to community college for my basics - and then transferred to a reasonable state university and got a reasonable MIS business degree that was in high demand. Is it really that complicated? We're talking about kids that are the age of 18. You would have to have some severely mental issues if you can't ask yourself questions like "What do I want to do for the rest of my life - AND - will anyone pay me a high salary to do that?"

You are right in the debt process at least - I've mentioned this previously, but student loans should have nothing to do with my parent's income. It's pretty hilarious considering the fact that people that do have money have a higher probability of being more responsible (higher chance of paying back the loans). But instead our stupid system says that they are unqualified and instead take the most riskiest loan possible.

So what caused the student debt issues?
1. They take on the highest risk applicants and dismiss low risk - anyone that knows insurance knows that you need a balanced pool of risk.

2. Stop offering stupid degrees - or at least, stop allowing federal loans for these degrees. The chances of you being well-off enough to pay off your loans for communications, psychology, philosophy, history, sociology, social work, basket weaving, and gender studies are - well - very low. It's not to say i'ts not possible, but it's suicide to give federal loan grants to those majors. The government should be incentivizing studies that we NEED as a nation. Ones that have demand. Ones that have jobs.

3. The one caveat I will give to the students is the public perception that college is needed when in fact it's not. Also, when millennials like to compare to countries that do have "free college" they often neglect to realize that not everyone is allowed to attend in such countries. Plenty will be told the equivalent of "Sorry, you're too stupid. Consider a trade skill" We don't have that here.

4. Oh one other caveat - Parents. As I said, the kids getting a loan is dependent upon the parents income. That means, the parents are FULLY aware of their kids intentions, actions, and loans - because they have to provide things like tax statements, income statements, etc... Parent's need to hold their kids accountable. If students are too stupid to know better (like you indicate) then the parents shouldn't be. Personally, I think both are fully qualified though.

If my kids asked me for tax statements in order to get loans - that now involves me. Asking questions like "How much are you loaning?" and "What are you using the funds to study?" seem like... you know... basic and simple questions that any reasonable parent should ask.

 

[highland145]

^^^^
that.

My son started college last year. He's going to the most affordable major college in the state, he lives at home, and has a 65% scholarship---we still have to pay $1000/month for tuition! THAT'S INSANE. I went to that same school 20 years ago and a 4 year degree cost about $8000 total. It's no wonder kids have it so hard today- they have to essentially buy the equivalent of a house mortgage while in school so they can get a job and spend a decade+ to pay it off. That shouldn't be. It's as if they're trying to make education as inaccessible as possible to keep people "in their place."

Same boat this year for my kid. $15K out of pocket with no other scholarships but it is private. '82-'86 at Clemson was ~$20k, all in.

If the govt/irs would stop collecting student loan debt, there would be some big changes down the line.

States have cut major funding, iirc, too.