Questions re: Hillary's College Plan

[pinstikfartherin]

I've read from her website. I've read news articles. I still have questions.

Which exact loopholes is she closing to pay for it? How much will those loopholes bring in? How high of a tax bracket will these loopholes reach?

I've seen her plan for capital gains tax reform. Is that included? Either way, how much will that bring in? I can find talk of the details but no numbers for the income it'd produce.

She says families will have to contribute but many students will qualify for grants.

Families will be expected to make a realistic and simplified family contribution. Students will contribute based on wages from ten hours per week of work. But students and their families should be able to afford college without borrowing for tuition, and with lower costs for other expenses.

What's the scale for this? At what income will a family have to contribute to college financing? What is a realistic contribution? Is this influenced by the number of children they have? Will the lower middle class benefit from further grants? Does the student's 10-hour a week income go to their tuition or is that their money to keep for expenses? Sounds like they'll contribute their earnings. It keeps saying "shouldn't graduate" without borrowing...but I have no numbers to go by.

As for student loan interest, her plan states

Under Hillary’s plan, if you have student debt, you will be able to refinance your loans at current rates. An estimated 25 million borrowers will receive debt relief, and the typical borrower could save $2,000 over the life of his or her loans.
For future undergraduates, the plan will significantly cut interest rates so they reflect the government’s low cost of debt. This could save students hundreds or thousands of dollars over the life of their loans.

How far will the rate be cut? When the rate is cut, will older borrows be able to refinance at those lower rates?

Good ideas without committing to full free tuition off the bat, but what are the numbers?

Edit: A couple more: the plan talks about states that participate or contribute. I live in Alabama, which never wants any programs in general. What about the states the refuse to participate? Will their funding and grants be cut? How will that work?

[tazkcmo]

1. Bookmarking

Can't wait to read the responses when I get home from work. My prediction: Responses will be questions and not answers to your questions, snarky comments implying your "Troll Quotient" (TQ) and insults directed at sen. Sanders.

[pinstikfartherin]

2. I hope you're not too disappointed...

that you're my only reply! Can't say I'm surprised though.

[tazkcmo]

9. And I'm back.

I'm not at all surprised so no disappointment either.

[bravenak]

3. There is already an EFC in the fafsa.

The 10 hour a week goes to the worker, it lessens the loan amounts needed. All kids who are going to school need to learn to work and establish a job history fo future employment. I am in school now and most work unless wealthy.
I think the rate will be cut to current interest rates but I'll have to check. I hope older borrowers are able to use the program.

[JonLeibowitz]

4. My concern:

My concern is that the 10 hour a week work may not, likely will not, be in areas that will ultimately be useful in students' careers. We see this already, with students who work for the university and do not truly gain productive skills. This can also be a distraction from pursuing extracurriculars that those who do not have to have the work requirement (rich kids) can afford to participate in. I saw this when I was in college and it was tragic. The 10 hours a week of work can hurt the careers of the poorer students in the end (though it has entirely noble and worthy intentions).

Now, what I think might be really a transformative idea would be to somehow pay for the students to commit 10 hours a week to public, national service. People often lament the low amount of civic engagement of youth and want them to give back. This is a great chance to do something for both problems.

Just this poster's opinions.

[pinstikfartherin]

6. Personally, I think it'd be great to exchange public service hours.

Such a program would really benefit the students because let's face it: working 10 hours waiting tables or manning a cash register isn't really helpful to gain more important skills for a career.

I agree about the 10 hour work week influencing extracurriculars. The whole idea appears more aimed to those who don't have to work during school. Every young student in my family already works because they have to, so this would not help them. If they aren't already working during school and this goes in their pockets rather than directly to tuition or room and board, it's probably going to be spent on food or other things that their parents (since they weren't going to otherwise work) were paying in the first place. Doing something like a public service hour exchange to be directly deposited into their student account or something similar would be helpful. This....eh, I don't really see how it will make an impact.

[bravenak]

7. Poorer students are already meeting the work requirement.

Most students are. That is why this provision is not concerning. If you are not rich as I was not rich, you work starting at 12-16. I baby sat from 12-16 and worked there after, even in high school I worked at least 15-20 hours a week. If you do not have to work, your parents are probably paying or you have a full ride. Nobody seems to care how jobs affect the studies of poor kids in high school, so why are we doing this with grown people? They need to learn that they must support themselves, there are usually jobs on campus that are flexible.

[pinstikfartherin]

5. I worked through school as well...

Full time after my first year, but of course, even at minimum wage, my grants were gone for the rest of my undergrad. I had to work to fully support myself because the bad economy at the time hit my family (I was in college during the economic crash). It didn't help that we'd always floated by in the first place, so either way it was on me to pay for everything I needed. I guess I just find it hard to see how students who have to work during school anyway will benefit from that; all the young people in my family work during college already. Perhaps the purpose is to encourage those that otherwise would not? But I would think that those who wouldn't otherwise work don't because they have family support anyway, so that won't change much unless there is a real incentive.

Hopefully older borrowers will be able to refinance with the program without an added fee.

Good luck in your studies, btw.

[bravenak]

8. Most of us started working in high school. 20 hours a week or so.

They need to know how to support themselves. Cuts back on folks who try to use FA for the money and just bullshit through school.