It would be 4% of your gross income. Period. Yes, it would be a long-term loan. So what? That money can be de-funded elsewhere (like 69,999 nukes that'll never have an opportunity to be used) and re-invested in our nation's long-term workforce.
That $50k-making young person may not be paying taxes on that 4%, but s/he's paying taxes. And buying goods.
Stop calling it an entitlement program. I won't argue over those, but this isn't a handout program in the least. It's still a loan that needs to be repaid--and will be, forcibly.
Yes, they would finance whatever they were not issued in scholarships. Like they do now. So what?
No one would be borrowing "more" than they need. The people who would pay some cost up front to avoid paying it back later would either continue to be those people or they'd invest that saved money.
You admit to not being an expert, yet you use "ridiculously absurd and terrible" hyperbole simply because you don't like the idea.
Let me pose a question to you. If the money for a "0% student loan" program came directly out of welfare and was completely funded with money otherwise dedicated to that program, would you be amenable to it?
I'm not at all saying it should be a handout. I wouldn't even advocate free degrees for rocket scientists and doctors (though I'd be okay if there was a program that allowed them to provide service in exchange for debt-reduction). I'm saying the government should do the lending as a pseudo-bank, granting those loans without any interest attached--but still requiring 100% repayment of every dollar.
Yes because defunding the money elsewhere is so simple. We have a ridiculous amount of debt we can't pay off.
Have a huge looming healthcare crisis which is going to cost a ton to fix.
Social security on the path to bankruptcy, again going to cost a ton.
We just got out of a housing crisis where people couldn't afford their homes
Around half a trillion dollars in student loans the government will probably have to eat from students defaulting
But pulling money out of our derriere to fund a huge entitlement program should be easy.
This is absolutely an entitlement program, because the government would be eating the bill of hundreds of billions if not trillions to fund it. I understand it's very different from a typical entitlement program as it requires people to hold some accountability for themselves, but long term 0% APR loans have significant economical value.
You're completely ignoring the time value of money and just how expensive this is.
The government offers mortgages which I think most people could argue a place to live is more important than extra education. Yet the government doesn't offer 0% APR mortgages, despite the house that a mortgage is a much safer loan since there are tangible assets as collateral.
And I don't need to be an expert to point out how absurd 25 year 0% loans are, because it's thst stupid.
And no I wouldn't be amenable to it if it came out of welfare. Because those people on welfare "need" it. And one way or another they would end up getting services which would have a financial impact.
I don't see why you find low APR student loans so objectable. It's the only way you could keep government loans cost neutral and attempt to encourage potential students to be financially responsible.
0% APR is an extremely sloppy and ineffective fix.