I am 100% convinced that the college debt bubble is going to make the housing bubble

look like pee wee's play house when it's all said and done.


http://finance.yahoo.com/college-edu...ady-to-explode


TI made a quite lengthy post about this about half a year ago here. The truth is, too many people have treated college educations like they did with mortgages (It doesn't matter how much you pay for a house because it's going to appreciate in value, a house is an asset, doesn't matter what my mortgage is) and are currently or are about to realize a negative return on investment. Interest rates are about to go up, jobs are about to be loss, especially ones in which a real strong niche / background is not required, about to see a lot of people out of jobs and not able to pay back loans.

Alot of women out there, stuck with 80k in debt, no option but to pay it off because you can't include it in BK, with 30-40k jobs with their BA degree. Guys, watch out. It's about to get UGLY. Now all kinds of "hot" women are going to be looking for college loan sugar daddy's hoping to pay off their debts that they can't get from under.

backbreaker said:

I am 100% convinced that the college debt bubble is going to make the housing bubble look like pee wee's play house when it's all said and done.

Click to expand...

That's why some people are saying this 'recovery' is really just a temporary stall to a bigger depression. If you don't think a depression is possible then think why do the media try to dress it down as the "great recession" or "worst recession since the depression". A depression basically mean a recession that is much worst in size. But a the word depression sounds scary to most people so the media don't use that term.

And when I say some people, I mean the intelligent people who predicted the financial collapse before it started happening when everyone else didn't.

Also, you can forgot a bailout of toxic student loans, that would be favoring the rich over the poor/middle class. these people are going to have to deal with it, and they should.

I don't know if college loans are bundled into larger financial instruments.

College loans do not pass to next-of-kin, so if you die, they are pretty much null-and-void. For that reason alone, I wouldn't expect banks to put much faith in them. However, if they "play the odds", they are going to have a lot of people defaulting now that unemployment is so high.

What concerns me is if people can't get credit for college loans. Then colleges and universities would either have to lower their tuition or go under.

I have no remorse...the whole "must-go-to-college" racket needs to be brought to its knees. Another by-product of an over-revved economy brought on by Clinton-era lending practices and Greenspan in there d!cking around with Fed rates.

squirrels said:

I don't know if college loans are bundled into larger financial instruments.

College loans do not pass to next-of-kin, so if you die, they are pretty much null-and-void. For that reason alone, I wouldn't expect banks to put much faith in them. However, if they "play the odds", they are going to have a lot of people defaulting now that unemployment is so high.

What concerns me is if people can't get credit for college loans. Then colleges and universities would either have to lower their tuition or go under.

I have no remorse...the whole "must-go-to-college" racket needs to be brought to its knees. Another by-product of an over-revved economy brought on by Clinton-era lending practices and Greenspan in there d!cking around with Fed rates.

Click to expand...

1. while college loans don't go to next of kin, you can't file them in BK either. which is actually imho worse.

2. they can and do garnish wages until they are paid. they will get their money, unlike the deflated mortgages. It's not the banks that are going to be hurting as much as it is the people. there is now walking away from student loans

3. tuition has rose almost 200% in the last decade, while the "value" of a degrees has lessened (the whole, a bachelors is today's high school diploma racket). tutitions DO need to lower. I was looking at going to Louisiana state had I gone to college, either them or Arizona. Louisiana out of state tuition at the time, was about 9k a year. now it's 17k.

If women have accrued most of the student loan debt, maybe that makes up for the fact that most of the lost jobs have been in male professions (hence the term "the male recesssion"). Maybe it evens the playing field a little more, spreads the misery.

I worked myself through college and actually never had to take out any loans to go. It's a lot more expensive to go to to college now though, and the chance of getting a career out of is less than it used to be.

The Republican's tax cuts for top 3%, which Obama just agreed to as well, are projected to cost the government more than Iraq, Afghanistan, the housing crisis, the recession, every bailout and every stimulus package combined. There doesn't seem to be much point in even attempting to care about this country's finances any more.

The Republicans say the deficit is their top priority, but then threaten to shut down government unless we make the world's biggest tax expenditure ever solely for the benefit of the very richest people. On the other hand, Obama gets elected to fight for the average guy, only to now show that he doesn't have the spine to fight anyone. I think he's done after this as a politician - he's going to be as popular as D!ck Cheney, and we're going to elect Sarah Palin, who will take office right as the most recent extension expires, and immediately extend the Bush tax cuts again.

Some of the wikileaks cables report that the Russian government, as suspected, is controlled largely by the Russian mafia. Although they use money instead of violence, we have our own mafia controlling the government, through the select few who have crafted a place for themselves in society where they can amass giant fortunes, annual incomes in the tens and hundreds of millions, and enough money to make sure that they own the government.

not ot get off on a nother topic, but I voted for obama. Still think it was the right choice. that is the most spinless bastard I have ever seen in my ****ing life. Grow a ****ing pair for crying out loud.

I miss the days, well I wasn't around, but we could use a president that really has been through some real tough **** in life and isn't afraid to back down from a fight. That's what is missing. Obama's politics isn't a problem, its' his lack of backbone and lack of afraid to please everyone.

Danger said:

Keep in mind on a $ for $ basis these "rich" are paying FAR more than most everyone else, for a multitude of socialist items.

I would hardly classify that as "unfair" to the regular guy, particulary when a majority of the regular guys are net recipients of tax dollars as opposed to payers.

it certainly isn't solely for the benefit of the "rich".

Click to expand...

I don't understand what you're saying. Everyone should pay the same dollar amount of taxes, regardless of income? How would that work?

Danger said:

Keep in mind on a $ for $ basis these "rich" are paying FAR more than most everyone else, for a multitude of socialist items.

Click to expand...

Please use supporting evidence. Like this:

In Canada, our taxation charter states that only 1/2 of your capital gains is taxable. The maximum income tax rate of 29% federal. The maximum income tax rate provincial is from Nova Scotia at 17.5%.

So if I make $100 on the stock market, that means $50 is taxable at 46.5%. So I pay $23.25. Effective tax is on the whole $100 is 23.25%

Also, I can write off capital losses so I only pay tax when I make money and I pay tax on half of that. But there are other deductions and write-offs to lower the effective tax way under 23.25%.

It's good being rich.

My evidence: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

I would hardly classify that as "unfair" to the regular guy, particulary when a majority of the regular guys are net recipients of tax dollars as opposed to payers.

it certainly isn't solely for the benefit of the "rich".

Click to expand...

That's nice. Now how about you post some evidence? I can make up **** too, it's very easy.

Let's keep this on economics and not politics

Danger said:

Alle Gory: Try this http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html. No need to get all angry. I realize truths can be uncomfortable, but sometimes you have to live with them.

Click to expand...

Your link covers only income taxes. There are more things to take into account. The tax system cannot be summarized in a table, but it would be simpler for everyone wouldn't it?

Please provide the following information:

• Capital gains tax rates
• Property tax rates
• Taxes on interest
• Deductions and write-offs
• Various federal credits
• State credits if they're significant. To make it easy, provide me with the state credits of California and New York since that's where most rich people live, and this is who you're fighting for.

Truth is based on reality, please provide the proper evidence to support it.

Danger said:

My point is that the rich already pay the lion's share of taxes in this country. It seems very perverse to frame the argument from a perspective that the rich guy is getting all of the benefits from a tax cut when he is already the guy doing most of the heavy lifting for the country's deficit to start with.

Click to expand...

From what I read, it's actually hard to say who pays what in taxes, because often the cost of paying the higher tax is passed on to everyone else through higher prices. This clouds both of our arguments and makes the rich vs poor debate kinda pointless.

All of that aside, extending this tax cut is going to amount to the biggest government expenditure in human history, coming from a government that is already pushing the limits of fiscal red ink and solving the problem by just printing more money.

It's a good thing I posted my FairTax thread last night,

FairTax to the rescue!

Go to FairTax.org and forget any half-baked attempts to discredit the FairTax.

Our current tax code is WAYYYYY overcomplicated (70,000 pages), unconstitutional for the way it intrudes into your life, expensive to administer ($265B per annum), and unfair: unless you are obscenely rich, all you do is pay fvcking taxes!

Think about it. For every dollar you receive as an employee, it is severely diluted by all those payroll taxes before you even receive it. Now you have 75 cents. Then, you go to the grocery store. Not only will you be paying "upfront" sales taxes with the 75 cents, but you have to pay all the imbedded taxes from the production and distribution stages of the product.

I'm telling you, the more you look into it, the more you will realize that it is our tax system that is largely responsible for the erosion of our middle class and the topheavy distribution of wealth in America. The middle class taxpayer has no tax shelters for his meager income; he is the packmule of society. Meanwhile, the richest people in this country (businessowners and investors) have tax shelters for their money; essentially, they are able to write-off the money they invest into their businesses (thus growing their assets and making them richer while writing off the investment).

By no means do I demonize wealth, we all want to be rich, but our tax code is destroying this country! Why is it that Americans are so expensive to hire? It's not because they demand ridiculous wages (they don't), it's because an employer has to pay so many fvcking taxes and deal with so much red tape to hire Americans.

I didn't notice that it was the AGI, thank you for the correction. I'll do some analysis on the AGI situation.

However, for the sake of argument. Notice on the table how the lowest income (less than $33K) individuals pay little tax. What do you want them to do?

You an barely put food on the table with $33K a year. No you can't have dinner Timmy, mommy has to pay income taxes.

But simply because you have money does not mean that you "owe" it to the other people.


True, but when those poor people get angry enough, they are going to come and take what you have, which will be easy since they outnumber you about 10,000 to 1. Of course they'll later squander the seized wealth out of their own ignorance, but that's little consolation if you're dead.

Even if all you care about is the absolute wealthiest people in the country, then it is still important to maintain enough of a standard of living for the underclass so that they do not become restless enough to storm the Bastille and take back what they think you owe to them.

Bible_Belt said:

But simply because you have money does not mean that you "owe" it to the other people.

Click to expand...

That money is made from the work of poorer people. So yes, you can argue that since you're using them to create your fortune, you do "owe" them something.

It really depends how the fortune was made, and how fairly the people helping you were treated.

Danger said:

Keep in mind though, that we are continually raising taxes for the sake of "helping the poor", but ironically the number of "poor" keep growing.

Click to expand...

From what I read, taxes are fairly low in America. Historically.

When you remove the consequences of poor behavior, you get increased poor behaviour. In other words, as long as we subsidize the welfare mom, we will get more welfare moms. We will also get more mommies leaving their husbands and boyfriends, and more mommies just getting knocked up by some cad.

As long as people know they will be taken care of, they have little motivation. We NEED consequences of bad decisions. I mean seriously, show me a "poor" person and I bet I can show you a flat-screen tv and a cellphone in the same household. That is not poor, that is a life-style choice.

Click to expand...

I completely agree, but this is because the welfare system is flawed. We still need a welfare system to help those in time of need because we don't want them to end up on the street. That will ruin their life and cause problems for us as a society. Everyone loses.

The welfare system should be a temporary solution for people until they get their life sorted out and become independent again. The welfare moms you're talking about, they're gaming the system because they can. Have a kid? Here's some money! Have another kid? Sure, here's even more welfare money!

Bible_Belt said:

But simply because you have money does not mean that you "owe" it to the other people.


True, but when those poor people get angry enough, they are going to come and take what you have, which will be easy since they outnumber you about 10,000 to 1. Of course they'll later squander the seized wealth out of their own ignorance, but that's little consolation if you're dead.

Even if all you care about is the absolute wealthiest people in the country, then it is still important to maintain enough of a standard of living for the underclass so that they do not become restless enough to storm the Bastille and take back what they think you owe to them.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%

Social programs and mild to moderate wealth redistribution exists as a safety valve against social unrest. I would rather a guy receive welfare, even if he squanders it on booze and cigarettes, if it keeps him from stabbing me on the streets.

Cracks me up that people of a certain political affiliation think that a poor struggling underclass is not their problem. I mean, they can't be that desperate to rob/shoot/steal from the wealthy/middle-class if they can't feed their family

Also amusing how the "hate the poor" crowd associate welfare spending with "Big Government" when by far the largest expenditures go towards Defense, Social Security, and Medicare, which are largely middle-class entitlements but eats up at least 70% of the federal budget.

To get back on topic...

Student loans are going to DESTROY a lot of people. Anyone that started studying in the last 4 years and does not have something in mind that will STILL be in demand (i.e. Doctors, Nurses...), will be slapped in the face upon graduation.

The fact that bankruptcy doesn't clear you from a student loan... is HUGE. In other words, if you don't have daddy's money to go through college... you most likely are going to rack up a huge amount of debt and then get a lower paying job that most likely has nothing to do with what you studied.

I'm seeing it already.

I was lucky enough to study for free. I made a wise choice at the time and I won't get into how I did it sans scholarships, but I did... because I knew ahead of time that I didn't want to get into debt as soon as I graduated.

It's a scary notion. You used to be able to graduate and get sought after... but if you're Bachelor's is in Arts or Business Administration or something a little more clerical... ENJOY YOUR DEBT.

The fallacy of "going to college" = profit is really a dangerous one.

On one hand, it CAN help, but it depends on what career you are embarking on. But for the most part, it's going to bring the next generation to its knees. And oh yeah, tuition fees keep going up. Isn't that great?

I just heard them grovel over at Rutgers a few months ago.


That student loan sure is a black cloud... isn't it?

Danger said:

This is where we differ. Nothing was made on the "backs of the poor people". A trade was made, where money was given for labor. Both sides agreed and nobody was forced to do anything.

Click to expand...

In a perfectly fair and legal business transaction, yes I completely agree with you. But when backroom dealings take place, thefts happen and people become poor.

Fortunes can easily be made on the "backs of poor people". Open up the business section of your local paper for the latest issue of legalized theft. Here's something to look into: the constant "borrowing" from the Social Security funds by the government to fund various "necessary" programs like wars. Last I heard, it's still filled with IOUs.

Who makes the money and becomes rich? The warmongers with their various defense companies.

Fortunes can be made on the "backs of the poor".