Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
College Debt: Don’t Even Think of Asking Me to Pay
Since everyone, including Presidential candidates, seem to be discussing canceling college debt, I was moved to offer some thoughts on the subject, none of which include canceling college debt, but some of which have been bandied about by grander conservative voices.
Now, my philosophy regarding this issue is simple: You made the deal, not the hardworking taxpayers who would be strapped with your “canceled” debt. Learn that lesson now; pay your own way.
That being said, there are other avenues to enter a productive, adult, working life, without incurring debt resembling the GNP of Bulgaria. Here goes:
- The obvious solution to extraordinary college debt is to reduce those pesky highly inflated tuition costs; no university is worth $250K. Period. But, since that won’t happen overnight, it may mean that you will have to elect not to attend that ridiculously overpriced edifice of higher education. So be it. Think how much smarter you are, already. That should be of comfort to you.
- A second radical approach to the college debt problem is to attend a local community college with reasonable and affordable tuition. Many students start their college career there, and either continue on, or become employed with a two-year degree. And, should you opt to secure employment during your education, there are companies that will actually pay for college. Look into it.
- A third option is … wait for it … not to attend college. Professional trades are stepping stones to entrepreneurial success and, thanks to President Trump, small businesses are booming. Even if you don’t choose to start your own trade business, no one I know isn’t grateful for a good electrician, plumber, or carpenter. Our lives depend on professionals in these and many other areas. Since one person cannot be an expert in every field, go be an expert in your field.
- A fourth possibility, and a heck of a good career choice for many, is to enter the US military. I cannot begin to enumerate the myriad benefits of military service, and while I recognize that it may not be for everyone, most employers I know think highly of an applicant who has served his/her country. Generally speaking, your pedigree is your honorable service.
- The fifth, parents, is for you. Stop buying the nonsense overpriced universities are marketing to you. And stop encouraging/pressuring your progeny to espouse it, too. Instill in your children, should they plan to work after college, that developing relationships and skill sets with businesses, for example, in the form of internships prior to The Job Hunt after college, will educe many benefits, some of which may lead to the hiring of said progeny. Dole out good, solid advice, not dough.
American youth: What you decide to do with your life is entirely your choice. But, why approach it with massive debt, or bind your parents to it? You have options. Don’t let those indulgent universities make their profits from you. Be wise, not foolish.
Lessons learned.
Published in General
My opinions are these. (They are only my opinions.)
If you or anyone want(s) to discuss the question objectively let me know.
Paying off early investors with money coming in from later investors.
It’s textbook Ponzi.
But I’d be interested in your explanation of how it differs.
SS has no investors and no investments.
Well, not willing investors.
I figured you were differentiating on semantics.
“No Investors”: Money is being paid in with the promise of future “returns”. Meanwhile that money is being paid out to current recipients who earlier paid in.
“No Investments”: Neither does a Ponzi scheme. That’s kind of the point.
Yes, SS is mandatory taxes instead of voluntary “investment”. A distinction without a difference in the broader order of things.
SS has no unwilling investors, either. An investor holds title to an asset. SS participants don’t gain title to any asset, so they are not investors.
The definition I am using for “investment” is the everyday one; I think that MWM is using the same one.
An investment is simply an asset owned by the investor for the purpose of providing a future cash flow.
Examples of assets are
Social Security participants are told, by people in the media and politicians in whom they have great faith, that they hold investments.
But in fact they do not. SS could have been designed to include investments, but the idea was politically unpopular and the decision was made not to do that.
FIFY.
MWM:
You had already stated it your position on the question of whether it’s a Ponzi scheme: you say “yes.” It was clear the first time.
You also stated that “People who haven’t studied it think it is”, but have yet to describe any actual difference that isn’t just semantics. I’m genuinely interested in whether or not you can describe such a difference.
If I can change the word “Social Security” to “Ponzi Scheme”, and change the identity of the people, and still come up with an accurate definition, doesn’t that in fact demonstrate the opposite of what you’re saying?
I’m not saying you’re (necessarily) wrong, just saying you haven’t provided any definitive differentiation that disproves the case.
My wife has gone back to school to retool. She has had multiple teachers in her classes tell their students to borrow as much money as possible since the government is going to forgive those debts.
She pushed back a bit and asked who was going to do the paying back. She said the professors / teachers looked confused then got angry at the question. You have to love higher education.
Let’s start with common semantics, using common definitions. What is the common definition of a Ponzi scheme?
We can use this one, from Wikipedia, if you prefer.
Here is my argument for why the US Government is not running a Ponzi scheme through the use of the laws governing Social Security.
Any one of these facts imply the conclusion.
Nearly all receipts of the US Government are from taxes and sale of securities. None are from investors.
again, I think we’re mostly arguing sematics.
1: Change the word “investors” to “Participants”. And you don’t need to “lure” when you’ve got the force of law making it mandatory.
2: “Pays Profits” – By your own definition in a ponzi scheme there are no “profits”, since there is no actual investment generating returns. So let’s say “Makes payments”.
3: “leads victims to believe that profits are coming from…other means” “Leads participants to believe that payments are coming from …their own accounts”.
The fundamental of a Ponzi scheme is that newer money coming in is used to pay older “participants” as if the money was coming from a legitimate source [in the case of a private sector Ponzi scheme, “profits”, in the case of a public sector Social Security, “the money you paid in”]. Yes, it’s “slightly” different, but it’s a distinction without a difference in terms of the ultimate result – In the end there’s not enough money left for everyone to get what they were expecting.
I agree.
If so,
What if we called it a ‘pyramid scheme’ and defined the term as “getting people to put money in with the promise that they would get more out and then not setting up a system that could support that promise”?
Regardless of whether it is a Ponzi scheme proper (and he should have trademarked the term and maybe gotten some money for it), it is a fraud – intended or not – perpetuated and enforced, and about to sieze like a Volkswagon engine in stopped traffic.
I think that
Do you agree?
If you don’t agree with one of these things, please state which one it is, and what you do believe.
When you say you believe that SS is a pyramid scheme, you are affirming your belief in a deception which I will identify in a moment.
First, let’s compare these:
Number 1 is a transfer, #2 is a trade.
So, there is no similarity between the two, except that each involves a transfer of money (though two essentially different kinds of transfer: involuntary and voluntary).
Neither procedure per se involves fraud because in neither procedure, per se, is there a deception.
However, politicians do state a very dangerous falsehood in the way they describe SS payments. When they do so knowing the truth, it is a deception, one whose purpose is purely political:
The fact is that a SS tax payment is simply that: a tax, a payment to the US Government as a single legal person, not to a separate part of the US Government regarded as a separate legal person.
The falsehood is the claim that the payment legally more than a simple transfer of funds: that it is a trade.
That is why I said at the outset that, when you say you believe that SS is a pyramid scheme, you are affirming your belief in a deception.
No doubt many US legislators are not aware of the Supreme Court cases establishing SS payments as taxes, but certainly every US lawyer involved in the matter is aware of these legal rulings.