And here we go with this week's promised announcement on student debt:
President Biden announced on Wednesday that he would cancel $10,000 in student loan debt for those earning less than $125,000 per year [or $250,000 per household], with an additional $10,000 for students who received Pell grants for low-income students.
So we've split the baby: $10,000 in forgiveness for nearly everyone and another $10,000 that's means tested for those who were poor when they were students.
That last is a little odd, since you'd think means testing would make more sense based on what people are making now. But I suppose it sends a signal that we want to make college cheaper at the time for low-income students. Whether anything will come of that in the future, who knows?
Biden's plan also continues the existing payment moratorium until after the election the end of the year, and caps the monthly payments people make if they're enrolled in an income-based repayment plan. The cap would be cut in half, from 10% of income to 5%.
And future students? Well, we still don't know about them. But I'll bet they're all hoping that their debt is forgiven someday too. I'm not sure what effect that will have on their present behavior.
Great, those of us that make a bit more but still have large amounts of student loan debt are ineligible. $125k isn't a huge salary in SoCal.
That's the problem with means-testing: you have to draw the line somewhere and those who are just above the line are going to feel like they were screwed.
Conservatives love means-testing because it splits the middle class and puts the two at each other's throats.
Also, salaries tend to be lower in red states, so they usually fall on the right side of the line when you make a federal decision like this.
You don't have to draw a bright line at all, you could have phase-outs like food stamps or IRAs.
We already have so many phaseouts that anyone in the middle class is likely facing a couple each year. This is bad because it can drama increases marginal tax rates.
It's better than a cliff.
If I were making 125,000 in Portland, I would buy me a new life.
Quit whining about your six figure largesse, limousine lib--... democrat-socialist of America.
I feel like such a sucker for having paid off my student loans on time.
You're a sucker for feeling like a sucker.
Someone who had $100k debt will now owe $90k. While you owe nothing. I'd say you got the better deal, and I'm sure that person would be happy to sign over their debt to you, if you feel they have it easy.
If I hadn't paid every penny I'd be $10,000 wealthier right now (I probably would not have the character to turn down a freebie, but we'll never know for certain). I owe nothing because I honored my obligations and now my tax dollars are being used to make someone else's life $10,000 better.
"...now my tax dollars are being used to make someone else's life $10,000 better."
Does it bother you as much when government aid favors fat cats and big business at the expense of everyone else, or is it a bigger problem when a new policy favors regular folk but just not you?
It does bother me, quite a lot -- I hate it when the Government favors anyone at the expense of everyone else. Most definitely.
I don't do any long distance driving, but I'm fine with other people benefiting from the Interstate Highway system. I pay for my own health insurance, but I'm fine with people getting help for their health care through Medicaid. I could go on: the examples are limitless.
The sad, selfish ballad of the anti-public investment troubadour.
The government must not invest in the country unless I benefit directly. We should not have roads that I don't use! We should not have public health resources until I need them! The thought of other people benefiting from broad public investments fills me with rage!
It is never a catchy tune and it's very repetitive.....but it is quite popular.
"You didn't build that (for me)", the hit new single from Cadillac dealer's son Cheddar Bob Ritchie.
But especially when it's Black people.
Tribal casinos also trigger you. & spearfishing.
When a new library branch was built near me, I did not say "why did I buy all these books?". I said "Yay! More libraries".
If you know any economics you know that other people being richer stimulates the economy, which helps you keep your job. But I gather you'd rather be a king among paupers. There are certainly countries where you can attempt to achieve that goal. Godspeed.
Libraries are awesome! When people create wealth by their own hard work, native intelligence, and ingenuity, it stimulates the economy -- yay wealth creation! The Government going further into debt to let people off the hook for loans they voluntarily assumed and agreed to repay -- not crazy about that.
You must really scream about agriculture subsidies. Right?
By the way, totally agree the government would be smarter to reward people who chose NOT to get an education. Awesome way to compete with Canada and China where all education is free.
You are likely an Elon Musk fanboi who also bitches about Solyndra & Obummer picking losers.
Shut the fuck up.
Life is unfair. My uncle died when he was 61 after paying a lifetime’s worth of Social Security and Medicare taxes, all so hundreds of thousands of other lucky duckies could collect both benefits into their 90s and beyond. Any new program or benefit has winners and losers.
Social Security also pays survivor benefits.
Not if you’re unmarried like he was. Unclear why that means his estate was “less deserving” of getting benefits than an estate in which there is a survivor, but I’m not complaining. Those are the rules. In hindsight, he should’ve grabbed any random woman he met at age 54, married her, gotten her the 7 years required for survivors benefits and then died. But he didn’t so he got nothing for his contributions (other than supporting a society in which old people don’t live in poverty like they do in most of the rest of the world, of course).
My greater point is that life is capricious and expecting institutions created by man to be 100% fair in dealing with every possible situation is a fool’s errand. You make the lifestyle choices you feel are best at the time, and you may or may not be rewarded by others for making those choices. Not sure why there’s all this haranguing over moral hazard or whatever for student loan recipients. We bail out other groups all the time who made good or bad lifestyle choices. (My personal favorite is FEMA funds for people who chose to live on the coast.)
And the uncle wasn't paying into the Social Security system to build up a nest egg for himself. His SS contributions were paying the benefits of those people who were already retired/over 62. His benefits would have been paid by the people still working. That's the way the system functions, and I'm constantly surprised at the general misunderstanding about the mechanism.
Insurance makes sense. But you sign up for insurance before you know whether you will be a winner or a loser.
This current plan is ridiculous.
Says the fancy boi in the suit in the klavern looking so conspicuous.
I care less about stealing money from dead people
Doubt your uncle had long-planned to die at 61, and it’s tragic he did. If he had lived longer he would have withdrawn from SS happily. And for that reason I don’t think it’s a very good analogy
Presldestination is motherfucker.
*predestination
Your anecdote is about randomness in life.
The anger at the student loan forgiveness is based on the precise opposite, LACK OF randomness. People who chose one life path got one outcome, people who chose an alternative life path got a different outcome.
If you want to make the argument that the jubilee is "fair" because it is "random" you need to show that, for the most part, those who did not payback their student loans were victims of unpredictable randomness, eg
- it was not predictable that they would flunk out (ie had history of bad academic behavior) or
- it was not predictable that their degree would not lead to a better job (ie the stats for those degrees at the time of the degree changed dramatically soon after the college enrollment)
There are plenty of things to complain about in US "education", from the explosion of credentialization to predatory private schools to the explosion in tuition costs. But NONE of these are improved in any way by a jubilee, or by a claim that such a jubilee represents random fate.
The age old hoary "worthy versus unworthy" fig leaf to object to lending a helping hand to women and BIPOC without having to say the quiet part out loud.
Well, okay, but... do you have alternatives to you feeling like a sucker that don't boil down to "everyone else has to keep getting screwed so I don't feel so?"
Short answer: no, they don’t. Cause there’s never been any new program or benefit or tax break or whatever that didn’t have somebody the day before it was announced saying “well fuck. I should’ve waited one more day before I bought X.”
I paid off my student loans on time, and I'm totally cool with this. Because I'm not a mental 12-year-old.
"Your tax dollars" being used to fund this would have otherwise just been handed to some billionaire welfare program anyway, so why not be happy that the middle class is being lifted up an bit for once?
Citizen Lehew,
Thanks for saying this!
Orson
I paid all my student loans on time too. I don't feel like a sucker. You know why? I recognize that governments do things all the time, constantly in fact, that don't directly benefit every citizen, but that, ideally, benefit us all collectively. My local, state, and federal government pays for or subsidizes all kinds of things I don't need and will likely never use. I don't feel like a sucker, because I am a functioning adult in a pluralistic, democratic society and I understand how that works.
Excellent points!
For what it's worth... I have no children of my own, but I sure want our public schools supported as much as possible in every way for all the families who have kids... for those families and for our society overall.
Right? I have no kids either. I wish my community and state spent MORE of my tax money on education.
I also support more generous parental leave, even though I will never benefit from it and, lets be honest, will actually burden me with more work if my coworkers take advantage of it. I understand that quality of life is not a zero-sum game. I benefit when others benefit.
You should feel like a sucker for uncritically regurgitating Trump Republican talking points. The argument that the government should never improve programs because it's not fair to people who only got the benefit of the existing ones is self-evident nonsense. You're like the people who sulk because they paid full price for an item last month, and now look! It's marked down by 20%! NOT FAIR!!!
In other news: the Inflation Reduction Act passed this year limits Medicare Part D recipients to only $2,000 out of pocket annually for their medications starting in 2025. My mom was such a sucker for paying $15,000/year for her cancer drugs back in 2015-2020 instead of just waiting until 2025 to have cancer. But I’m still happy that future cancer victims in 2025 will save $13,000/year on the drugs she took.
And I’m happy current student loan holders will get relief despite having paid off all my loans in 2016 too.
That's not really an analogous comparison. Your mom needed and paid for cancer meds when she had cancer; she had no choice about it. It would certainly have been nice if the meds were cheaper then, but that has nothing to do with whether or not government action makes meds cheaper in the future.
However, somebody who based their decision on where to go to school because of debt concerns and/or chose tradeoffs (a less enjoyable but higher paying job, or forgoing buying a house, or delaying having children) with their money to pay off student loan debt DID have a choice, and made that choice based on expectations about federal policy towards loans. It's not illegitimate for somebody who spent the past few years scrimping and saving so as to pay off that last $10k in loans to feel a bit burned that the government is now going to forgive $10k in loans.
It's legitimate to feel a bit burned. It's wholly illegitimate to act on that in counteproductive ways, tho. At that point you're into "I was screwed and so everyone who comes after me must be screwed, that's only fair!" territory.
So much of American exceptionalism in employer-employee relations and government benefits for citizens (as compared to our peer nations) can be explained by this sentiment. “Well I never had X, so nobody after me should have X either, and I’ll use the government to make sure neither the government nor employers ever thinks of giving anyone X.”
This
Whatever. Then change the details to someone who bought an electric car before the creation of massive tax credits for doing that. Or bought any car, period, just before the start date of the Cash for Clunkers program in 2009. Or spent money on solar panels before we cared enough to subsidize those. Or died before we got rid of the inheritance tax in 2017. There are tons of examples of people *just missing* the cutoff for whatever government decides to subsidize in the future. Not sure what “necessity” has to do with it: it certainly is a necessity to have a college degree in most parts of the country if you want to have a job that pays more than subsistence wages.
The alcoholic who died just before the repeal of prohibition.
Also my grandmother was really a fool, because she bought all her drugs before there was even a Medicare Part D to help out at all!
But she had the last laugh on her mom, who worked in a job that wasn’t covered by Medicare or social security taxes (think: housekeeper) way back in the 1950s and thus missed out on any social security or Medicare benefits at all.
It’s funny how each successive generation gets benefits that previous ones miss out on. It’s almost as if progress implicitly leaves out those who came before the progress was achieved!
You're just doubling down on the same incorrect comparison by saying that people of the present shouldn't be miffed by loan forgiveness because they have it better than people of the past. But this isn't a successive generation thing; that would be something along the line of making *forward-going*student loans less expensive, or something.
All I'm saying is that there is some population of people who made tradeoffs based on the assumption that they would have to pay $10k in loans who--particularly if they already paid off those loans--might feel miffed by this loan forgiveness announcement. And that those feelings of miffedness aren't, as you seem to imply, illegitimate.
I'm not making any comment at all about whether or not this program is on the whole a good thing, good politics, or even "progress." To be honest, it seems far more like a least-bad alternative, whereby actual good progress on the cost of higher ed would involve an act of congress, but since that can't happen, Biden is going to cancel some amount of student debt not because that's the best or necessarily even a very good thing to do, but because it's the best of options that are actually available to him.
And that those feelings of miffedness aren't, as you seem to imply, illegitimate.
And so these feelings are, as you seem to imply, completey legitimate? All on your own sayso? Whatever points you may have thought you made were more than drowned out with this little sally.
If someone feels "burned" because some fellow Americans in future are going to be spared the scrimping and saving they had to engage in, it speaks poorly of their capacity for generosity.
To be honest if delaying having cancer is an option you should definitely take it.
Rebuttal: If you have the option, have cancer when you are younger. Mortality rates decrease with age.
Just out of curiosity, what counts as “student debt”? Does that mean debt related to just tuition, or does it include housing, books, food, etc.? Is “student debt” restricted to loans taken out from lending institutions and indicated as “student loans” or is any borrowing associated with school considered student debt?
It's specific loan types; it doesn't differentiate between which parts of qualifying loans were spent on tuition and which on other things.
Colleges and universities that participate in the Federal Student Loan program (which is to say virtually all of them) allow students to borrow the full cost of tuition, books, mandatory fees and “estimated living expenses” including room and board. (The institution calculates this value, so it’s not like the student can say “oh I signed a lease for a $5000/mo apartment, give me a $60K loan.”)
But the borrower can use the loan money for anything he/she wants (as long as he/she somehow remains a student through the last disbursement date). So I knew of students who had their parents paying for everything who still took out student loans for tuition + living expenses and then bought a car or went to Europe. I knew very few of these people since I went to a state school during an era when tuition was still in the 4 digits per year and apartments could be had for $300/mo. But scammers did exist, just like homeowners scamming FEMA funds after hurricanes and landlords scamming Section 8 vouchers and whatnot exist too.
It's been decades. I got what was called a national defense student loan -- it was implemented in 1958 in response to Sputnik.
The money went straight to the university and I never saw it. Overall, it was a great deal. I believe the interest rate was 3%
As I understand it they were crappy loans. I’m all for the government buying them and making the terms of repayment more fair. I don’t think there would be much objection to that.
Those well-off loan system abusers sound like half-million dollar PPP recipient Catholic socialist Matt Bruenig, who got his half mil paycheck protection dollars during the Plandemic for his company that had two employees (himself one of them).
Half of all Americans never attend college: about a third of Americans complete their undergraduate degree. The half that attend college tend to be richer, whiter etc.
The GOP ads will clearly highlight the aforementioned.
But college debt more heavily skews non-white and non-rich.
Plus, trade school grads also graduate with about $10k of student debt, so Dem ads will (hopefully) highlight that.
The U Penn Wharton model "Student Loan Relief Seen Costing Billions and Favoring Top Earners"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-23/student-loan-relief-to-benefit-top-earners-analysis-finds
Yeah, I was surprised at the cost of tech school. Recently, my air conditioner died. The guys who installed my new A/C were good so I was curious about how much it might cost to get 2-year associate degree in HVAC at a local, state supported tech school. Their website estimates the cost at about 15K.
Perhaps more heavily non-white and non-rich than those who attend, but this policy still favors the white and the rich at the expense of others (via another line item on the national credit card)
It’s just silly policymaking. I’d be shocked if loan forgiveness like this polled above 40% approval. Who caters to the base ahead of a consequential midterm? Stupid
You can just say Demokkkrats are the real racists & that's why Blexit is a real thing & not a figment of Candace Owens's imagination.
Just so I'm clear... many people complain that progressive policies are too focused on helping the poor and leave the middle class out to dry (which allegedly is why so many middle class people are voting for Trump, because Repubs always help the middle cla... wait, now I'm confused).
So when we've scoured our brains trying to find any progressive ideas that DO target the middle class, student loans is one of the few that jump out. But then what happens when we finally do anything student loan related? Hand wringing and grousing about how unfair it is! /facepalm
Welcome to the Democratic Party.
I can beg and beg for you to fix my flat tire, but if you stick some duct tape and chewing gum on the hole I’m still going to be disappointed
i.e., yes this is a problem we needed to solve, but it’s basically the dumbest possible way to do it. “People have too much debt => pay it off for them” is basically the Democratic equivalent of Trump’s wall; passes muster for about half a millisecond until you find two brain cells to rub together on it
I reserve my right to be disappointed with the problem while also being disappointed at the bungled solution put forward by our leading statesmen. I just thought as Democrats we’re supposed to be more serious policymakers
Do you have a better option that doesn't involve legislation?
Future students will have the 5% of income cap (with excess interest covered) from the beginning instead of having to make larger payments for years or decades before that came into effect. Might well be better than getting the one time $10k forgiveness in many cases.
Which college will be the first to raise tuition by $10K in anticipating of future Democratic GOTV schemes? And when interests rates go up to cover the inflationary hit will those of us who did pay our debts get some form of relief?
Will the next step be relief from the tax owed on debt forgiveness? For those lucjy enough to have had debt forgiven, of course.
If you have a better action that can be taken that doesn't involve either 1) enabling legislation, or 2) telling those groaning under the weight of ridiculous debt "such it up, I had to get screwed so you do to" I should like to hear it.
There was literally nothing stopping those colleges from raising tuition $10k in the past.
You do make an odd argument. You say that this action will be a boon for the economy, creating more demand for goods and services, creating demand for new jobs and pay increases, increasing revenue for businesses across the country.....and then you demand direct compensation from the government to help you handle this. Weird, right?
People gotta complain about something.
And it will cause inflation! Because debt service is preferable to eating. So funny.
Lucky fellow tests positive for monkeypox, covid and HIV simultaneously,
https://bnonews.com/index.php/2022/08/man-tests-positive-for-monkeypox-covid-and-hiv-at-the-same-time/
Doctor: I have some good news and some bad news.
What's the bad news?
You have monkeypox, covid and HIV, all at once.
What's the good news?
I hear Sandman is pretty OK.
This diagnosis has everything (save MTV's Dan Cortese).
Circa 2006, there was a growing mortgage crisis with a steep rise in defaults. The first affected were subprime borrowers, and there was talk about passing legislation to bail them out. The arguments against bailing out borrowers then were very much the same arguments being made today by those against canceling student debt. Those people took out loans knowing the risks. They shouldn't have borrowed the money if they can't repay. It's not fair if they get bailed out while I paid off my mortgage just I promised I would. Don't make me a sucker.
The people against the bailout for borrowers carried the day. But the mortgage crisis didn't go away. It got worse. Defaults surged, home sales plummeted, prices cratered. The entire financial system was brought to its knees and nearly collapsed. The economy crashed, and recovered only years later, the slowest recovery in memory. Stocks lost $8 trillion in value.
The government bailout finally came. It went to the banks and the lenders. Some firms went under (Shearson, Bear Stearns, et al.), but most were kept afloat. They were Too Big To Fail. But for most people, help was scarce. Millions lost their homes, lost their jobs, had their lives ruined.
The price tags for the bailouts and economic stimulus were many multiples of what it would have cost to provide assistance to those who got over their heads in debt in the first place. Instead of thinking what's best for everyone, people wanted to make it a morality tale. Teach people a lesson. All in the name of "fairness."
Maybe student debt isn't a perfect analogy for the mortgage crisis. But it's not a bad one. A generation of college-educated young adults are carrying a load of debt that previous generations weren't burdened by. It's held back their ability to buy homes and start families. The "cost" of providing some relief is relatively light and is not costing the rest of us much at all. The economic outlook offers more upside than anything else. I don't see the reason for all the bellyaching. We may in fact be preventing a bigger and more costly crisis down the road.
Respectfully, could you not make a very similar argument, likely stronger argument, for the Federal Government stepping in and paying medical debt, payday advances, loans on used cars etc.
While I generally agree with your comparison to people’s resentment of a proposed mortgage loan bailout I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened during the year 2006-2008 that caused the crash and when bailouts and loan forgiveness were proposed.
When you propose a bailout it is best to do it in a way that makes most people feel that help was provided but it was done fairly. If the general perception is unfairness then there will be a lot of resentment.
Great news. Honestly, as a conservative, these types of handouts used to bother me. However, after seeing the effects of the Coronavirus handouts and their impacts on rents, I'm now in favor.
These people will get a one time 10k bump, rents will go up $100-200 a month, and all that money will find it's way into the pockets of the wealthy. Sadly, I'm not wealthy yet, but as I now have a better understanding of the game, hopefully it won't be long...
Shoot, I may vote blue yet.
Will Gen Z now go out, register to vote, and show up at the polls in November?
If they don't, should they be viewed as a constituency that doesn't care much about anything, and therefore be sidelined from additional policies that address their concerns?
In other words, if Gen Z doesn't increase participation in elections, why spend scarce political capital on them when it could better be used for others that are likely to vote, and vote to defeat the GOP in this critical time.
Most of Gen Z is still in high school or college. I'd guess the major beneficiary of the new policy is Gen Y (Millennials).
I was using Gen Z as a proxy for young (potential) voters and should have been more precise with terminology. I replied elsewhere (Twitter) with precisely what you suggested: Gen Y and Millennials.
Thanks for the clarification.
I still want to see if there is increased turnout by young voters. If $10,000 won't get more to the polls, that'll trigger a lot of studies about the near-impossibility of getting more people to vote.
Considering Always On Camera makes $174,000 a year as a Congressinfluencer & is thus cutout of the debt relief, I am sure she & her Injustice Democrat cronies are already acting to depression youth turnout.
*depress
It keeps a campaign promise.
The extra 10K for people with Pell grants helps to target people from poorer backgrounds who probably had to take out more loans to get their education. Not perfect, but a decent proxy.
This will provide relief for those caught up in some of the "mail order diploma" mills that have not been forgiven already. It will help those who are struggling to pay off student debt without giving a huge boost to those who do not need it.
As for the fairness of student aid:
https://slate.com/business/2022/07/college-financial-aid-sham.html
iirc this debt bubble started when Bill Clinton made student loans unbankruptable. If we reversed that - and even forgave student loans for students who have declared bankruptcy since then - we'd not only have an immediate impact on those who are hurt most from having to pay when they can't really afford it, but it could fix the problem going forward.
I never understood why he signed that legislation into law. It always seemed to me to be a handout to the banks at the expense of the poor.
TrIaNgUlAtIoN
Do you really want scheming ( ( ( doctors ) ) ) & ( ( ( lawyers ) ) ) further scamming their professional school loans with a convenient bankruptcy filing?
Do you really want the poor to keep suffering from higher tuition and higher loan interest rates?
The fix for scheming rich would be to modify the bankruptcy code. Not that it's going to happen. Half of what the government does is grift for the rich. But allowing the poor to keep suffering just so you can go after the rich doesn't solve matters either.
I believe student loans can't be refinances, unlike mortgages. The interest rates on some of them are higher than mortgage interest rates...it's a very unfair system and the people who are most impacted are students from lower and middleclass backgrounds, often the first generation to attend college. Even going to community colleges, where tuition is low, one must borrow in order to pay for books and living expenses.
The people who resent--or are arguing for resentment--are often recipients of many tax advantages targeted to the upper-middle class and well-to-do, such as the mortgage interest deduction for homeowners, and the Trump tax cuts.
It is truly a heartless response to an important program that will help those most in need.
It also caps repayment at 5% on income, which will help even those who don't qualify for the debt relief now, such as current students taking out loans now and in the future.
The entire program needs to be reorganized. But this is a great first step. And I speak as someone who paid off student loans in the distant past, and whose adult children did pay off their own loans after college. I am so happy that we are extending a helping hand to a new generation, who have been swamped by the horrible Trump years and by COVID.
I do like the 5% payment cap. But everything else is just a bandaid on this gaping wound. We need more than a one-time partial cancellation.
Biden had a compelling reason to do this regardless of any counter-arguments. It was an election promise. Politicians who honor election promises are to be applauded.
The Prodigal Son's brother called; demands he get his money too.
While I was pro forgiving some student debt anyway, I had a realization that makes me more comfortable with it: we were charging too high an interest rate on student loans, so this is effectively retroactively lowering those rates. People who paid off their loans quickly wouldn't have been as hurt by high rates as people who had their loans a long time.
I just don’t see how the suffering of others is supposed to make me feel better. I mean, I’m not a Republican.
Now remove it from the party platform.
I wish he would have cancelled all student loan interest from 2008 to the present. Put this in the context of having given massive banks and other corporate institutions interest free loans during the Bush recession. As it is, I do not think it is great politics because young people do not vote.
Hopefully, the early returns on new youth registrations after Dobbs will bear fruit.
Lot of twentysomething broads who know their boyfriends & husbands, despite claiming to be different, are a lot more like the Bretts Kavanaugh (rapey) & Bernies Sanders (child-support scofflaws) that came before, & also not all too keen on wearing condoms.
Hopefully...I have been waiting for millennials to seize the future for awhile but instead the greatest geriatric generation continues to curse us.
After 19 years we just finished paying off my wife's student loans from her masters degree in the last year. How about just cutting us a check for $10k? Seems fair.
OK Wefare Kween.
*welfare
Instead of periodically forgiving $10k of student loan debt, maybe have the government make a one-time $10k deposit to every 529 plan when it's opened. That will allow the funds to grow over time. If the account is not used after a period of time (say, 30 years), the government reclaims the $10k along with any capital gains. This seems sustainable and more fair.
Of course, as I'm writing this I realized that if it were to become policy all the colleges would immediately bake that $10k into their tuition fees.
Not a bad idea, but....with the 10K deposit, after 18 years, you may have 15-20K for college, as long as the stock market didn't tank as the bill comes due. In other words, it might cover a semester.
Yes, I wasn't suggesting people rely on this one time payment (and it's growth) to fully fund a college education. Just like this $10k forgiveness did not wipe out all student loan debt. I don't think the government should be funding people's college expenses. But, if they are going to provide assistance, it seems what I proposed is much more fair then forgiving some debt at one point in time.
And...The money should automatically be invested in a target date fund so you're exposure to stock price fluctuations decreases as you get closer to the student going to college.