Should a Student with a 1000 Phone Have Their Student Loan Canceled?
Should a Student with a 1000 Phone Have Their Student Loan Canceled?
Should a billionaire receive huge tax cuts, or should wealthy businesses get forgiven PPP loans? The answer depends on the criteria set by the government and financial institutions. Meanwhile, many qualified individuals, earning less than $75,000 annually, are in dire need of student loan relief. This includes graduates from trade schools that often failed to secure them decent employment.
Should a Student with a 1000 Phone Have Their Student Loan Canceled?
The question of whether a student with a $1,000 phone should have their student loan canceled touches on a broader debate about the eligibility criteria for student loan forgiveness. When determining eligibility, should the courts consider a person's ownership of personal items, such as a $1,000 phone?
Answer: Yes, they should meet the criteria for student loan forgiveness if they qualify, regardless of the items they own. Ownership of goods like a phone should not be a factor in deciding whether a person is eligible for loan forgiveness.
The decision on who should or should not receive help based on a single observation or item is rather disheartening. For instance, what if the phone is their only device for internet access and communication? It's cheaper overall than a cheaper phone and a monthly cable and internet bill combined.
Who Decides What People Can and Can Not Own?
Is it the lending institution or the government that decides what people can and cannot own when they have their loan forgiven? This question brings to mind a historical example involving the former President, Donald Trump, during one of his bankruptcies in the late 1980s or early 1990s. At that time, he had a monthly spending allowance of $50,000 or $100,000. Despite his wealth, no one saw fit to question whether he was too wealthy to be given this allowance.
Means tests can indeed be beneficial, but they often increase the complexity and cost of any program. These tests add layers of bureaucracy, which can slow down the process of providing relief to those in need. Therefore, relying too heavily on means tests while overlooking broader humanitarian concerns can lead to unfair outcomes.
What about Vehicles and Public Transportation?
Can a person in need of student loan forgiveness own a car? Should they be relegated to public transportation or a bicycle? And if they choose a bicycle, how expensive could it be?
While focusing solely on the ownership of a $1,000 phone, the argument seems to suggest that a person is only entitled to help if they have nothing. However, history shows that when individuals and companies declare bankruptcy, they are frequently allowed to retain their property, even if it is worth millions. Such dispossession is only carried out at pennies on the dollar, often as part of the reorganization process.
The core issue here is whether the criteria for loan forgiveness are fair and equitable. While it might seem reasonable to scrutinize a person's lifestyle for evidence of undue luxury, it is paramount to recognize that such a narrow focus can overlook genuine hardship and need. People deserve help based on their financial circumstances, not based on an arbitrary standard set by external observers.
Conclusion
In summary, whether a student with a $1,000 phone should have their student loan canceled should depend on their eligibility for forgiveness, not on the items they own. The focus should be on ensuring that those in need of financial support receive it, regardless of their lifestyle or possessions. The debate over loan forgiveness criteria must balance equity and pragmatism to benefit those who truly need assistance.