Thinking Long Term

1 February, 2008

Student Loans

Filed under: Uncategorized — alvera @ 5:36 pm
Tags: , , ,

I believe that everyone should have access to free tertiary education.  Because a education leads to a better paid job, and a more skilled workforce.  Because people with less money should have the same opportunity as the wealthy.  And because learning is valuable in itself – people benefit from education on many levels.  Therefore the state should tax people, and provide this free education for everyone.  Now that’s simplifying, but it’s how I really feel.

Now some people would have you believe it’s good to pay yourself to get an education.  If you want one, you pay for it.  But what if you can’t afford it?  How can we give these people the same opportunities to succeed as any other?

You could loan them the money.  But then they’d have to pay it back at some point.  And if those people who weren’t as well off didn’t have… oh, I don’t know, say, a $500 lump sum, then they will have to pay it all back.  If your Mummy or Daddy had money, then perhaps they could pay off the money and you could receive a reward – a small debt write-off.  Now wouldn’t that be fair?

Of course I don’t think that’s fair.



  1. Under National, you pay for what you get.

    They believe prosperity should come at a cost to everyone, doesn’t matter whether your rich or poor.

    Comment by hcjs — 1 February, 2008 @ 7:47 pm | Reply

  2. Given that graduates gain the most benefit from their qualifications it’s not unfair that they should pay a percentage of the costs. As to write offs for a $500 sum it makes perfect sense. Given that the loans are interest free any graduate can take the time to save up that much and it’ll save the govt plenty now that student debt has started growing so much faster and repayments have dropped off so much.

    Comment by oliverioh — 2 February, 2008 @ 2:38 am | Reply

  3. I don’t understand your issue here. Let’s say that worker A can afford to pay back a $500 lump sum repayment and they get a $50 bonus. Worker B can’t afford a $500 lump sum payment. Do they miss out? I can’t see why. Can’t Worker B save $10 per week and make a $500 repayment at the end of the year? Where is the issue?

    Also, do us a favour and replace “free” with “make someone else pay for”. As you say, “education leads to a better paid job”, so why must the truck driver help pay for the education of the stock broker?

    Comment by arch0n — 3 February, 2008 @ 1:06 pm | Reply

  4. Yes the very point is that worker B may not be able to save $10 per week, therefore lucky old rich worker A is unduly advantaged… widening the gap again between worker A and worker B. Worker A once again gets rewarded for being wealthy while worker B has to work even more to get to the same position as worker B.
    I gladly pay my taxes so other people can get good education. I didn’t say education only leads to a better paid job – you’re ignoring all the other benefits to having an educated society.

    Comment by alvera — 5 February, 2008 @ 2:14 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: