Now that the Big Beautiful Bill is the law of the land and has been signed by President Trump, I would like to look to the future and share some insights on important topics and outcomes.
Why should taxpayers back higher education loans? What neighborhood effect is there? How does someone getting a degree in gender studies benefit the taxpayer? Why should we subsidize this, especially when tuition costs are 40-100k a year depending on the school. Is government funding the reason for all of the great contributions throughout its history from American inventors , entrepreneurs, scientists?
Look at the size of these endowment funds these universities run, they make you take courses you don’t need and offer degrees in made up fields with made up courses. They’re liberal cesspools. These loans are only made because banks know the taxpayer will pick it up when the student can’t pay. The US shouldn’t guarantee or back any of these higher education loans except in certain cases. Why should the people who didn’t go to college subsidize others for their own choice? In the end all we get is inflation and a decrease in the standard of living. Bailouts is the name of the game.
They were not funded by or created by government. The govt did a good thing in incentivizing them to be built, I’ll say with that piece of information. The government did not subsidize these things with the money of taxpayers. These were a result of capitalism and freedom.
During the late 19th century during Industrial Revolution and America was prospering under capitalism and all of the famous tycoons? Liberty University, John’s Hopkins, Robert Morris university. Look at the years a lot universities were founded. And ask why? People created them because it was their desire to do so. They had the money to fund it because the govt left them alone to pursue their own interests. We are told a lie that the American businessman were stepping on the boot of the everyday worker while at the same time that worker was telling his entire family in Ireland, or Germany or so on to come over to the United States. Funny how we had massive influx of immigrants at a time when there was no income tax and the American tycoons and entrepreneurs were stepping on the neck of the everyday worker.
First of all, it is important to know that I am a huge fan of capitalism. I support it and think it is a great economic system. With that said, I don't think your suggestion that education was private is accurate. Please look up the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 and the development of land-grant universities. A land-grant university is a higher education institution that receives federal land, granted by the government, to help fund its establishment and operations. These universities were established under the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890, with the original aim of providing practical education in agriculture, military science, and mechanical arts, alongside traditional subjects. Today, these institutions play a vital role in education, research, and community outreach, contributing to various sectors of their respective states.
The US income tax didn’t start until 1913. The reason we have all of these universities is because of the private sector not tax subsidies. The reason the US has the best healthcare is because it is private. Why did Mick Jagger get his aortic valve surgery in the US? Doctors used to be able to be their own boss now it’s a thing of the past. Private practice in healthcare is a thing of the past because Health care insurers acted like the mob and screwed physicians on facility and physicians fees which is why you see private equity taking over everything. When baby boomers retire fully, you will see a massive shortage in doctors and quality of healthcare. No one wants to become one anymore. My dad is a physcian and said he would not become one today. He’ be an employee. He is now but he’s paid by private equity. Tell me if all doctors are employed by government and everyone is covered by government, do you think healthcare will get better in the future ?
Home interest tax deduction, I am not familiar with it can you explain a little, sorry?
The U.S. has led innovation because of its investment in education. Many of the benefits of healthcare, science, and finance have been developed at Universities and by people that went through college.
I am in favor of evaluating the benefits of the tax deductions but to say there isn’t a benefit to higher education is misleading.
My understanding of the caps on student loans is to course correct sky high tuition. Everyone agreed tuition costs were/are out of control when Biden floated student loan forgiveness. Forgiving loans would do nothing to correct the problem for future students.
I’m curious on your thoughts on the merits of decreasing borrowing limits, as it pertains to deflating the cost of higher education. Lowering tuition seems to be the point of the BBB provisions you discuss, but you don’t address that.
Jake, great question. I can get long winded on this and it probably deserves a dedicated post.
Increase in tuition is mainly driven by the capital infrastructure and services students and their parents demand. Universities compete for students. Turns out students want sports, buildings, accommodative services…etc. higher ed can reduce its costs the question though is will students accept those changes?
If so, then there are schools out there that focus entirely on education and increasing ROI, students are just not picking those universities for education. What are your thoughts?
Is there merit behind the argument insane profit margins have been driven up by the “easy money” of federally backed loans? Is there any correlation between student loan program changes (lower bar/higher lending limit etc) and rising tuition?
On principle, waving dollars in the face of the university system could only lead to higher tuition, with no guarantee of a better product.
Abdullah- I have looked specifically for the reconciled, signed version of the BBB, and have come up with this. Information on the College Cost Reduction Act in Google varies depending on specifics of how the inquiry is worded. It seems from my investigation that much of it has been incorporated into the "Big Beautiful Bill", which was of course passed. The specific provision on making institutions ineligible for federal student loans based on a comparison of earning outcomes with non-college-educated workers, however, was excluded, according to this summary of the entire legislation, shown under "Student Loans and Higher Education Provisions", sub-category "Ineligibility Based on Low Earning Outcomes":
Thanks for doing your due diligence. I might be reading it incorrectly, but it is included in the final version, although it was not in the initial house version. I will look more into it.
I read you "Accountability Measures" piece as well as the link. The article in the link is interesting, but I did not see in it specific support for your contention that "One analysis found that fewer than half of two-year degree programs would pass this earnings test." My supposition is that this would be because the law's wording says that the comparison is based on ALL students who attend the college, and two-year programs have much higher dropout rates on average than 4-year programs. Since I work for a 2-year college, this is worrisome to me -- I suppose that when you say failing schools would "lose access to federal loans for at least two years", this includes Pell grants, which 26.6% of HCC students received in 2024 -- we are one of the largest urban colleges in the United States, and that would be an utter disaster for our institution and for the low-income population of Houston, to say nothing about prospective employers -- 40% of Houston's households have an income under $50K.
I have always said that education should not be a profit motive by the government. Student loans should have been interest free. These changes will combat the progress that has been made. Coupled with the cuts in education im genuinely worried now. Its very worrisome.
This is a tough one to see go through because we all know the power of a college degree, both financially but also personally. It's sad to think about how many amazing students there are on the margin who will now miss out on that opportunity.
Why should taxpayers back higher education loans? What neighborhood effect is there? How does someone getting a degree in gender studies benefit the taxpayer? Why should we subsidize this, especially when tuition costs are 40-100k a year depending on the school. Is government funding the reason for all of the great contributions throughout its history from American inventors , entrepreneurs, scientists?
Look at the size of these endowment funds these universities run, they make you take courses you don’t need and offer degrees in made up fields with made up courses. They’re liberal cesspools. These loans are only made because banks know the taxpayer will pick it up when the student can’t pay. The US shouldn’t guarantee or back any of these higher education loans except in certain cases. Why should the people who didn’t go to college subsidize others for their own choice? In the end all we get is inflation and a decrease in the standard of living. Bailouts is the name of the game.
They were not funded by or created by government. The govt did a good thing in incentivizing them to be built, I’ll say with that piece of information. The government did not subsidize these things with the money of taxpayers. These were a result of capitalism and freedom.
During the late 19th century during Industrial Revolution and America was prospering under capitalism and all of the famous tycoons? Liberty University, John’s Hopkins, Robert Morris university. Look at the years a lot universities were founded. And ask why? People created them because it was their desire to do so. They had the money to fund it because the govt left them alone to pursue their own interests. We are told a lie that the American businessman were stepping on the boot of the everyday worker while at the same time that worker was telling his entire family in Ireland, or Germany or so on to come over to the United States. Funny how we had massive influx of immigrants at a time when there was no income tax and the American tycoons and entrepreneurs were stepping on the neck of the everyday worker.
First of all, it is important to know that I am a huge fan of capitalism. I support it and think it is a great economic system. With that said, I don't think your suggestion that education was private is accurate. Please look up the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 and the development of land-grant universities. A land-grant university is a higher education institution that receives federal land, granted by the government, to help fund its establishment and operations. These universities were established under the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890, with the original aim of providing practical education in agriculture, military science, and mechanical arts, alongside traditional subjects. Today, these institutions play a vital role in education, research, and community outreach, contributing to various sectors of their respective states.
The US income tax didn’t start until 1913. The reason we have all of these universities is because of the private sector not tax subsidies. The reason the US has the best healthcare is because it is private. Why did Mick Jagger get his aortic valve surgery in the US? Doctors used to be able to be their own boss now it’s a thing of the past. Private practice in healthcare is a thing of the past because Health care insurers acted like the mob and screwed physicians on facility and physicians fees which is why you see private equity taking over everything. When baby boomers retire fully, you will see a massive shortage in doctors and quality of healthcare. No one wants to become one anymore. My dad is a physcian and said he would not become one today. He’ be an employee. He is now but he’s paid by private equity. Tell me if all doctors are employed by government and everyone is covered by government, do you think healthcare will get better in the future ?
Home interest tax deduction, I am not familiar with it can you explain a little, sorry?
How did the private sector create universities?
The U.S. has led innovation because of its investment in education. Many of the benefits of healthcare, science, and finance have been developed at Universities and by people that went through college.
I am in favor of evaluating the benefits of the tax deductions but to say there isn’t a benefit to higher education is misleading.
Do you support the home interest tax deduction?
My understanding of the caps on student loans is to course correct sky high tuition. Everyone agreed tuition costs were/are out of control when Biden floated student loan forgiveness. Forgiving loans would do nothing to correct the problem for future students.
I’m curious on your thoughts on the merits of decreasing borrowing limits, as it pertains to deflating the cost of higher education. Lowering tuition seems to be the point of the BBB provisions you discuss, but you don’t address that.
Jake, great question. I can get long winded on this and it probably deserves a dedicated post.
Increase in tuition is mainly driven by the capital infrastructure and services students and their parents demand. Universities compete for students. Turns out students want sports, buildings, accommodative services…etc. higher ed can reduce its costs the question though is will students accept those changes?
If so, then there are schools out there that focus entirely on education and increasing ROI, students are just not picking those universities for education. What are your thoughts?
Is there merit behind the argument insane profit margins have been driven up by the “easy money” of federally backed loans? Is there any correlation between student loan program changes (lower bar/higher lending limit etc) and rising tuition?
On principle, waving dollars in the face of the university system could only lead to higher tuition, with no guarantee of a better product.
How do we determine that there are “insane profit margins”?
Abdullah- I have looked specifically for the reconciled, signed version of the BBB, and have come up with this. Information on the College Cost Reduction Act in Google varies depending on specifics of how the inquiry is worded. It seems from my investigation that much of it has been incorporated into the "Big Beautiful Bill", which was of course passed. The specific provision on making institutions ineligible for federal student loans based on a comparison of earning outcomes with non-college-educated workers, however, was excluded, according to this summary of the entire legislation, shown under "Student Loans and Higher Education Provisions", sub-category "Ineligibility Based on Low Earning Outcomes":
source: https://www.cu.edu/blog/government-relations/cu-summary-one-big-beautiful-bill-act
Hurray. For now
Thanks for doing your due diligence. I might be reading it incorrectly, but it is included in the final version, although it was not in the initial house version. I will look more into it.
I read you "Accountability Measures" piece as well as the link. The article in the link is interesting, but I did not see in it specific support for your contention that "One analysis found that fewer than half of two-year degree programs would pass this earnings test." My supposition is that this would be because the law's wording says that the comparison is based on ALL students who attend the college, and two-year programs have much higher dropout rates on average than 4-year programs. Since I work for a 2-year college, this is worrisome to me -- I suppose that when you say failing schools would "lose access to federal loans for at least two years", this includes Pell grants, which 26.6% of HCC students received in 2024 -- we are one of the largest urban colleges in the United States, and that would be an utter disaster for our institution and for the low-income population of Houston, to say nothing about prospective employers -- 40% of Houston's households have an income under $50K.
I have always said that education should not be a profit motive by the government. Student loans should have been interest free. These changes will combat the progress that has been made. Coupled with the cuts in education im genuinely worried now. Its very worrisome.
This is a tough one to see go through because we all know the power of a college degree, both financially but also personally. It's sad to think about how many amazing students there are on the margin who will now miss out on that opportunity.
Education is easy to cut because the costs are recouped immediately but the losses aren’t felt for decades.
I worry about education becoming a luxury. I know it seems far fetch but stranger things are happening.