Student Loan

[pinoyhero]

Well put, again a case of the more productive members of society (or in this case their kids) being discrimiated against in favor of the less productive. The only thing you've left out is that out post secondary education and the student loan program is subsidized/funded by, you guessed it, tax dollars, a larger amount of which (both in terms of absolute dollars and percentge income) is from the more productive.

[Amysicle]

Originally posted by pinoyhero


And free post secondary education is? Why should the government give away money? The whole student loan concept is lame, if people ned money to go to school then they should hit a bank and get a lona like everyone else. Why should mediocre students get discounted loans at my (the taxpayers) expense?

Not speaking for everyone, but in my situation, a government student loan is the only way to go for me.

In high school I was an average student. Marks were in the 70s and 80s, and although I probably could have qualified for some scholarships, I didn't apply for any because at the time, going to post-secondary was not an option for me, and did not seem like it would ever be in the near future. I didn't want to apply for scholarships and take funds away from people who could have put it to better use.

I've been working for the past couple of years, trying to save up for school but since I don't live with my parents, it's a little slower. I've been working on building my credit, but even now when I applied for a student line of credit and even just a simple bank loan, I was turned down. The banks will not give me a loan unless I get my parents to co-sign which is not a possibilty.

I realize going to school is not a right, it's a privilage and I also know that the government student loans are being funded by tax payers, and I do expect to pay every cent I borrow back. I do not see it as a free loan to play around with, and I definitely do not expect anyone else to pay for my education for me. I have enough saved to pay for tuition, but it's the living expenses that would kill me even as I try to work part time to try and live within my means.

I do understand and empathise with students that do live with their parents, and are denied a loan because "their parents make too much" and see that it is not enough to cover the cost of education. It's almost like being in the same boat as me, however, most of them have parents that are able to co-sign a loan for them. I also realize that some of you out there feel I don't deserve this student loan which makes it possible for me to go back to school. I just want you to understand that not all of us who rely on the government student loan are trying to scam the tax payers (myself included) or look for a free hand out.

[pinoyhero]

^Unfortunatley Amy, the loan program can't distinguish between legit user like yourself and others. The thread starter for example has a $30,000 car, brand new, but still needs a loan. I know of a whack of people out there either financed by banks, themselves or parents who are going to school and couldn't get a loan but sure as shit aren't driving fancy new cars. This is the reason Im against the program. I woud be for a program that held people more accountable, such as you would seem to be, but the government is too soft witht their handouts making a tax pyer like me just cringe. Lets follow this and see if the thread starter gets his loan, regardless given the info that you have provided and he/she has providede I would say its pretty easy to loan to you (which we know has already broken down) and not to him/her.

[lint]

Originally posted by TrevorK

Whether you believe in it or not, by not offering the same incentives to go to school based on income level (of yourself or your parents) is discriminatory.

So by this argument, should EVERYONE be entitled to social assistance programs, no matter what their income is? How does welfare fit in? I don't get to claim CCTB because our family income is a fair bit above the max limit. Should I feel entitled to this "free money" as well even though I know that the program is designed to help out parents who are truly in need?

Originally posted by TrevorK

How would you feel if you were denied a student loan because the government said your parents made enough money, yet your parents said they didn't? Then you walk into school, and see the free money (As shown in my posts above) being given away to those who qualify for student loans.

Your parents have an obligation to you and your education. If they have the means, they are responsible. Just like they were responsible for paying for your field trips in elementary, extracurricular activities in jr high and high school.

Having the means to fund an education for your children and choosing not to is no excuse for that child to become a burden to the state.

Funny sense of entitlement.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by pinoyhero


And free post secondary education is? Why should the government give away money? The whole student loan concept is lame, if people ned money to go to school then they should hit a bank and get a lona like everyone else. Why should mediocre students get discounted loans at my (the taxpayers) expense?

WTF? How can you call a student "mediocre" because they're poor? But to answer the question, POOR students get interest free loans from the government because the government wants to encourage post secondary education. An educated population makes for a wealthier nation. I thought that was obvious.

Originally posted by TrevorK


Whether you believe in it or not, by not offering the same incentives to go to school based on income level (of yourself or your parents) is discriminatory.

How would you feel if you were denied a student loan because the government said your parents made enough money, yet your parents said they didn't? Then you walk into school, and see the free money (As shown in my posts above) being given away to those who qualify for student loans.

I'm not advocating taking the program away - everyone should have an equal opportunity to education, regardless of their financial status, based on their academic criteria. However, no group should be given free handouts (Again, see above for a simple example) because it is determined that their income level deserves it. They are already at an advantage because of their loans (interest free until 6 months after graduation), and then they get much, much more opportunity for free money?

Upon graduation the "poor" student and the "rich" student both have the same income and job potential. Yet, the "rich" student may potentially be saddled with more debt repayment while the "poor" student may have been given the ability to focus more on school while enjoying the loans.

Again, how exactly does said rich student have more debt? If he's rich, then he doesn't have to assume so much debt. If his parents won't help him with the bills, then that's his parents' fault for not fulfilling their obligations, not the governments.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by pinoyhero
Well put, again a case of the more productive members of society (or in this case their kids) being discrimiated against in favor of the less productive. The only thing you've left out is that out post secondary education and the student loan program is subsidized/funded by, you guessed it, tax dollars, a larger amount of which (both in terms of absolute dollars and percentge income) is from the more productive.

First you say poor people are mediocre. Now you say rich people are more productive. What is wrong with you man?

Originally posted by lint
Your parents have an obligation to you and your education.

Yes exactly, thank you.

[pinoyhero]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff


WTF? How can you call a student "mediocre" because they're poor? But to answer the question, POOR students get interest free loans from the government because the government wants to encourage post secondary education. An educated population makes for a wealthier nation. I thought that was obvious.
Again, how exactly does said rich student have more debt? If he's rich, then he doesn't have to assume so much debt. If his parents won't help him with the bills, then that's his parents' fault for not fulfilling their obligations, not the governments.

1. I didn't say the poor were mediocre students. I said that the mediocre shold get loans. For students that excel, rich or poor there are things caled scholarships as well as banks who will more willingly lend to those with great credentials as well as a paying job that they can pay the loan back with.
2. Higher education makes for a wealthier nation I agree, but as a tax payer I woujld far rather see students get money from a job or standard loan under standard terms rather than from my pocket.
3. A rich student all else being equal would have more debt because they would not get a interest free loan at the expense of their parents who are the ones paying more taxes and actually funding the free loans.
4. Funny part here is that some are claiming it is the parents obligation to fund their child's education. Infact they are funding education via paying taxes that go to subsidzing schools as well as interest free loans. Furhter why are you claiming that only rich parents have the obligation where poorer parents dont have the obligation and can rely on the tax payer to fulfill it for them.

I have an idea, why don't you donate more to student programs or to the poor and homeless and make that your life goal, to give away money ... that way you can feel good about yourself and the individualist can quit complaining.

[pinoyhero]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff


First you say poor people are mediocre. Now you say rich people are more productive. What is wrong with you man?



Yes exactly, thank you.

1. See above post.
2. Why would you think the rich aren't more productive members of society? Is that not the measure we are talking about in this thread about money? Simply on the basis of taxes paid or money churned through the economy or not being a drain on the economy, the rich are more productive members.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by pinoyhero


1. I didn't say the poor were mediocre students. I said that the mediocre shold get loans. For students that excel, rich or poor there are things caled scholarships as well as banks who will more willingly lend to those with great credentials as well as a paying job that they can pay the loan back with.
2. Higher education makes for a wealthier nation I agree, but as a tax payer I woujld far rather see students get money from a job or standard loan under standard terms rather than from my pocket.
3. A rich student all else being equal would have more debt because they would not get a interest free loan at the expense of their parents who are the ones paying more taxes and actually funding the free loans.
4. Funny part here is that some are claiming it is the parents obligation to fund their child's education. Infact they are funding education via paying taxes that go to subsidzing schools as well as interest free loans. Furhter why are you claiming that only rich parents have the obligation where poorer parents dont have the obligation and can rely on the tax payer to fulfill it for them.

I have an idea, why don't you donate more to student programs or to the poor and homeless and make that your life goal, to give away money ... that way you can feel good about yourself and the individualist can quit complaining.

Do you think there's no relation between poorer people being less educated? It's easy for you to sit at your computer spouting off things like "oh well, poor kids can get scholarships" but have you ever considered that Johnny No Shoes might be working 2 jobs to help his family pay rent, so it's pretty much impossible to get scholarship grades? Or maybe Judy McTrash is trying to take care of her babies that resulted from some bad decisions as a teen, while still going to school to become a nurse. Are you asking those two people to go to the bank to get a standard loan??

[pinoyhero]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff


Do you think there's no relation between poorer people being less educated? It's easy for you to sit at your computer spouting off things like "oh well, poor kids can get scholarships" but have you ever considered that Johnny No Shoes might be working 2 jobs to help his family pay rent, so it's pretty much impossible to get scholarship grades? Or maybe Judy McTrash is trying to take care of her babies that resulted from some bad decisions as a teen, while still going to school to become a nurse. Are you asking those two people to go to the bank to get a standard loan??

There certainly is a relationship between being less educated and being poorer. Do you not know of anyone less advantaged that has done extrememly well and actualy built a solid financial picture? There are a ton of cases, you need not look further than google and look up the numerous rags to riches sotries out there, when people work hard they get paid off.

And as far as the jab at someone working two jobs so they can help pay their parents rent? In this city if a set of parents are working a total of 4 jobs, and as per our "labour crisis" they sure could, I would doubt that they need help paying rent of $1200 a month.

Judu McTrash ... so she made a mistake, why is it now the tax payer's responsibility to bail her out of that? Why should she get free money after making a mistake and those who didn't make that mistake not only are denied the hand out but are also charged with having to fund it? That being said there are certainly teen mothers who can work and go to school, I'm sure there are cases of it. Will it be ahrder for them, ofcourse, they made the mistake in the first place. Why do you think its up to the tax payer to correct the mistakes of others? As mentioned, if you think its not the mistake makers duty to clean up their own mess, the go find Judy and fund her education (so the tax payer does have to via student loans), take care of her kids (so the tax payer doesn't have to, via govt subsidies) and pay her rent (so the taxpayer ... well you get the idea).

Consider this, do you not remove the motivation to work harder and strive to succeed by giving away freebies? Look at a great deal of our homeless. They get free rent, free food and a some free money to go spend across from their 4 star hotel at BEERLAND. You think if you took those things away there would be as many homeless? And before you state that I'm a cold-hearted objectisivst, I do support programs for the mentally or physically disabled, our tax dollars should be going towards ensuring they are better off, no so the lazy and maintain their lifestlye.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by pinoyhero


There certainly is a relationship between being less educated and being poorer. Do you not know of anyone less advantaged that has done extrememly well and actualy built a solid financial picture? There are a ton of cases, you need not look further than google and look up the numerous rags to riches sotries out there, when people work hard they get paid off.

And as far as the jab at someone working two jobs so they can help pay their parents rent? In this city if a set of parents are working a total of 4 jobs, and as per our "labour crisis" they sure could, I would doubt that they need help paying rent of $1200 a month.

Judu McTrash ... so she made a mistake, why is it now the tax payer's responsibility to bail her out of that? Why should she get free money after making a mistake and those who didn't make that mistake not only are denied the hand out but are also charged with having to fund it? That being said there are certainly teen mothers who can work and go to school, I'm sure there are cases of it. Will it be ahrder for them, ofcourse, they made the mistake in the first place. Why do you think its up to the tax payer to correct the mistakes of others? As mentioned, if you think its not the mistake makers duty to clean up their own mess, the go find Judy and fund her education (so the tax payer does have to via student loans), take care of her kids (so the tax payer doesn't have to, via govt subsidies) and pay her rent (so the taxpayer ... well you get the idea).

Consider this, do you not remove the motivation to work harder and strive to succeed by giving away freebies? Look at a great deal of our homeless. They get free rent, free food and a some free money to go spend across from their 4 star hotel at BEERLAND. You think if you took those things away there would be as many homeless? And before you state that I'm a cold-hearted objectisivst, I do support programs for the mentally or physically disabled, our tax dollars should be going towards ensuring they are better off, no so the lazy and maintain their lifestlye.

I don't think you're a cold hearted objectivist, I just think you're ignorant. Notice how dedicated you are to arguing your 1 sided view? That's the first sign of ignorance right there. Speaking from personal experience, the more educated I become, I find the less opinionated I am. In a way, I envy those who have a more simplistic view of life, because I can no longer argue many things with conviction. But I digress.

You know, they make movies about people going from "rags to riches." Do you know why? BECAUSE IT'S A FUCKING FAIRY TALE. It doesn't happen often in REAL life all that often. Just because you've seen some shitty Will Smith movie and felt all warm and fuzzy inside doesn't mean that it's anything like that in reality.

Finally, try naming for us a single 4 star hotel where bums can stay for free. Have you ever even been within 100 meters of a homeless shelter? Maybe you've been staying in the wrong 4 star hotels. Or maybe you're full of shit.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by lint
Your parents have an obligation to you and your education. If they have the means, they are responsible. Just like they were responsible for paying for your field trips in elementary, extracurricular activities in jr high and high school.

Having the means to fund an education for your children and choosing not to is no excuse for that child to become a burden to the state.

Funny sense of entitlement.

The whole problem is that a person, at 18, is their own responsibility when it comes to everything but education. The system unfairly punishes those who's parents are deemed "rich enough" yet may not help them at all.

Many parents make enough to have their children denied student loans, yet do not save anything for their children's education. It may not be the way the government envisions it, but it does happen and very often.

Why are these children punished? They are denied grants/bursarys (As illustrated above) and are forced to seek private loans which tend to offer high interest rates (prime + 3.75 in RBC's case) upon gradiation, while accumulating interest during schooling.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by TrevorK


The whole problem is that a person, at 18, is their own responsibility

What the fuck.

Lint used the word OBLIGATION. Not RESPONSIBILITY.

He's eloquent and picked that word carefully, so don't destroy that by using a very different word to make your argument work.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
Again, how exactly does said rich student have more debt? If he's rich, then he doesn't have to assume so much debt. If his parents won't help him with the bills, then that's his parents' fault for not fulfilling their obligations, not the governments.

Because I disagree with your statement of it being the parents obligation to finance their children's education, as I don't think it's the reality (Even though I wish it was).

I think it would be great if every parent could financially help their child through university, so they could focus on their studies and become what they want rather than what they can afford. Myself - I'll follow the lead of my friend who stashed away $20,000 for each of his children to pay for their education. I feel this will be the best for my future children, and will allow them the options many do not have.

The sad reality is, this isn't the case for many students.



So, in a perfect world, yes, the "rich" students have less debt. In our world, the "rich" students tend to have more debt.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
What the fuck.

Lint used the word OBLIGATION. Not RESPONSIBILITY.

He's eloquent and picked that word carefully, so don't destroy that by using a very different word to make your argument work.

Please read bolded section below, from Lint's post, indicating parents are "responsible"

Your parents have an obligation to you and your education. If they have the means, they are responsible.

I did not use a word he did not, he specifically said parent's are responsible if they have the means.

[pinoyhero]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
I don't think you're a cold hearted objectivist, I just think you're ignorant. Notice how dedicated you are to arguing your 1 sided view? That's the first sign of ignorance right there. Speaking from personal experience, the more educated I become, I find the less opinionated I am. In a way, I envy those who have a more simplistic view of life, because I can no longer argue many things with conviction. But I digress.

You know, they make movies about people going from "rags to riches." Do you know why? BECAUSE IT'S A FUCKING FAIRY TALE. It doesn't happen often in REAL life all that often. Just because you've seen some shitty Will Smith movie and felt all warm and fuzzy inside doesn't mean that it's anything like that in reality.

Finally, try naming for us a single 4 star hotel where bums can stay for free. Have you ever even been within 100 meters of a homeless shelter? Maybe you've been staying in the wrong 4 star hotels. Or maybe you're full of shit.

I agree the more educated one becomes the less ignorant they should be. That being said, often the more educated one bcomes the more they make and thus the more taxes they pay. It just is painful to watch the more productive members of society who worked their ass of in school to be so, get stuck with footing a larger share of the bil to take care of those who did not chose to endure the hardships of the path of getting an education.

OK fair enough I'm exaggerating about the brick homeless shelter on prime land on the river that was recenlty built but I challenge you to find one person who sees that building and thinks its a run of the mill shleter for the homless, most would think its far nicer than what is required.

FYI, the pursuit of happyness is a true story jackass, not a fairy tale.

[pinoyhero]

Originally posted by TrevorK


The whole problem is that a person, at 18, is their own responsibility when it comes to everything but education. The system unfairly punishes those who's parents are deemed "rich enough" yet may not help them at all.

Many parents make enough to have their children denied student loans, yet do not save anything for their children's education. It may not be the way the government envisions it, but it does happen and very often.

Why are these children punished? They are denied grants/bursarys (As illustrated above) and are forced to seek private loans which tend to offer high interest rates (prime + 3.75 in RBC's case) upon gradiation, while accumulating interest during schooling.

You have pointd out a greeat example of discrimination. The best part is that the rich parents are the one funding the loan for the poor parents child by paying more taxes.

[pinoyhero]

Originally posted by TrevorK


Please read bolded section below, from Lint's post, indicating parents are "responsible"



I did not use a word he did not, he specifically said parent's are responsible if they have the means.

LOL, ZING!

[lint]

Originally posted by TrevorK
The whole problem is that a person, at 18, is their own responsibility when it comes to everything but education. The system unfairly punishes those who's parents are deemed "rich enough" yet may not help them at all.

Many parents make enough to have their children denied student loans, yet do not save anything for their children's education. It may not be the way the government envisions it, but it does happen and very often.

If a parent has the means and choses not to help their children, then they fail as a parent. Between parents who want to help their children, but don't have the means or parents who have the means and chose not to help their children who should be punished?

Originally posted by TrevorK

Why are these children punished? They are denied grants/bursarys (As illustrated above) and are forced to seek private loans which tend to offer high interest rates (prime + 3.75 in RBC's case) upon gradiation, while accumulating interest during schooling.

How many poor kids whose parents CAN'T help them are there for every rich kid whose parents WON'T help them?

I find it amazing that you're arguing rich kids are more disadvantaged than poor kids when it comes to the accessibility of higher education.

[lint]

Originally posted by TrevorK
So, in a perfect world, yes, the "rich" students have less debt. In our world, the "rich" students tend to have more debt.

bullshit