This story of loan forgiveness does not sit well with me

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s infuriating. I know some people personally who quit their good paying… but “boring”… jobs to pursue their passions and now live off welfare. At least they don’t live near me so I know my money isn’t going to them

Funny how people get infuriated at people with modest incomes scamming the system but shrug their shoulders at people scamming billions of dollars from taxpayer coffers.

The late billionaire Sheldon Adelson, for example, used a complicated trust mechanism called a “grantor retained annuity trust (GRAT)” to “pass on $7.9 billion to his children while avoiding $2.8 billion in gift and estate taxes.”

Don’t blame the billionaire for doing this perfectly legal technique, blame the tax code. And lots of wealthy billionaire Democrats do similar legal techniques to lower their taxes.

Don’t blame the loan for givers for using a perfectly legal technique to put more money into the economy.

Well see there's the rub, per the SCOTUS, it's not a perfectly legal technique to forgive student loans. You took on the debt, not the taxpayer. If you failed to read the details of the loan, that's on you, not the taxpayer. Pay up Buttercup!

[Anonymous]

Why are they forgiving loans? I can understand if those loans were signed under false pretenses but if they weren’t, why forgive them?

[Anonymous]

This is a great use of my tax cents compared to what the majority of my tax dollars go towards

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s infuriating. I know some people personally who quit their good paying… but “boring”… jobs to pursue their passions and now live off welfare. At least they don’t live near me so I know my money isn’t going to them

Funny how people get infuriated at people with modest incomes scamming the system but shrug their shoulders at people scamming billions of dollars from taxpayer coffers.

The late billionaire Sheldon Adelson, for example, used a complicated trust mechanism called a “grantor retained annuity trust (GRAT)” to “pass on $7.9 billion to his children while avoiding $2.8 billion in gift and estate taxes.”

All smart wealthy people use trusts (and other means) to legally pass on their estates while avoiding estate taxes. Fact is that money was already taxed once, there is absolutely no reason it should be taxed again to transfer it to your kids. Fact is there are plenty of legal ways to avoid this and have been for decades.

We earned our money, 95%+ of it as W2 income and taxed at the highest rate. Absolutely no reason for the govt to take 40-50% (fed and state) of it when we die.

That's your opinion, not a fact. Plenty of advanced economies tax estates at a far higher rate, and their societies are more equal and more harmonious for it. My opinion is that we don't need to have billionaires passing on the bulk of their megafortunes to their heirs tax free while there are hungry children in America who could benefit from better social welfare supports.

See above. Happy to pay my taxes once. I've paid more in State taxes in a SINGLE year than most people will earn in a lifetime. I've already contributed to social welfare programs and happily support them. I'm not a billionaire totally avoiding taxes. Most of our income is W2 or interest and some cap gains. We have no way to shelter it legally, so we pay high taxes yearly. I donate to several organizations of my choosing to locally support at an even better level. But still do not support the govt taxing my money a 2nd time and will utilize all tools possible to avoid that.

I also still believe people should take some responsibility for themselves, and that includes not overpaying for college and expecting others to subsidize you. When it is totally possible to get a good education that is AFFORDABLE.

Sigh. When money is transferred, it is taxed. Whether that's 1099 income, W-2 income, dividends, gambling winnings, or inheritance. When your money is transferred to your kids, it ceases to become your money, and becomes theirs. Hence, it is transferred, and therefore taxed. It *already* receives significant tax preferences - a tax exemption up to a defined amount, and then a lower tax rate than ordinary income.

The "double taxation" argument is made by people who either know better but are advancing an agenda, or are easily gulled by simplistic talking points.

Sure a portion is "protected" at federal level. Soon to be about 50% of that reduced.

Also, anything over $500,001 is taxed at 37%+ (and any over $1M is 40%), so I'd argue that most is taxed at Higher rate than regular income taxes. Given that the max tax rate is currently 37% Then some states start as low as only $1-2M protected. In my state, first M is 10% and it gradually increases to anything $9M+ is 20%. So yes, I'm going to do everything in my power to ensure my kids don't have to pay 59% taxes on the money we give them upon death. It will be in a trust and also given yearly while alive to take full benefits of not taxing the money for "the death transfer". Call it whatever you want, but once I earn the money, I should be able to transfer it to my family without having to pay a transfer tax.

Why? Is there a principled reason for this position? Why is this transfer different from any other?

Also, "anything over $500,001 is taxed at 37%+ (and any over $1M is 40%)" is not quite the whole story, is it? Yes, those are the rates for the taxable amount. But first $13.61 *million* is exempt from the estate tax. So, if you leave an estate if $14.61 million, you will pay a grand total of $345,800 in estate taxes. That is a grand total of 2.36% of the estate. If you really would "argue that most is taxed at Higher rate than regular income taxes," you are a blithering idiot. Unless, of course, you have an estate worth more that about $60 million, in which case, boo-freakin'-hoo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s infuriating. I know some people personally who quit their good paying… but “boring”… jobs to pursue their passions and now live off welfare. At least they don’t live near me so I know my money isn’t going to them

Funny how people get infuriated at people with modest incomes scamming the system but shrug their shoulders at people scamming billions of dollars from taxpayer coffers.

The late billionaire Sheldon Adelson, for example, used a complicated trust mechanism called a “grantor retained annuity trust (GRAT)” to “pass on $7.9 billion to his children while avoiding $2.8 billion in gift and estate taxes.”

All smart wealthy people use trusts (and other means) to legally pass on their estates while avoiding estate taxes. Fact is that money was already taxed once, there is absolutely no reason it should be taxed again to transfer it to your kids. Fact is there are plenty of legal ways to avoid this and have been for decades.

We earned our money, 95%+ of it as W2 income and taxed at the highest rate. Absolutely no reason for the govt to take 40-50% (fed and state) of it when we die.

That's your opinion, not a fact. Plenty of advanced economies tax estates at a far higher rate, and their societies are more equal and more harmonious for it. My opinion is that we don't need to have billionaires passing on the bulk of their megafortunes to their heirs tax free while there are hungry children in America who could benefit from better social welfare supports.

See above. Happy to pay my taxes once. I've paid more in State taxes in a SINGLE year than most people will earn in a lifetime. I've already contributed to social welfare programs and happily support them. I'm not a billionaire totally avoiding taxes. Most of our income is W2 or interest and some cap gains. We have no way to shelter it legally, so we pay high taxes yearly. I donate to several organizations of my choosing to locally support at an even better level. But still do not support the govt taxing my money a 2nd time and will utilize all tools possible to avoid that.

I also still believe people should take some responsibility for themselves, and that includes not overpaying for college and expecting others to subsidize you. When it is totally possible to get a good education that is AFFORDABLE.

Sigh. When money is transferred, it is taxed. Whether that's 1099 income, W-2 income, dividends, gambling winnings, or inheritance. When your money is transferred to your kids, it ceases to become your money, and becomes theirs. Hence, it is transferred, and therefore taxed. It *already* receives significant tax preferences - a tax exemption up to a defined amount, and then a lower tax rate than ordinary income.

The "double taxation" argument is made by people who either know better but are advancing an agenda, or are easily gulled by simplistic talking points.

Sure a portion is "protected" at federal level. Soon to be about 50% of that reduced.

Also, anything over $500,001 is taxed at 37%+ (and any over $1M is 40%), so I'd argue that most is taxed at Higher rate than regular income taxes. Given that the max tax rate is currently 37% Then some states start as low as only $1-2M protected. In my state, first M is 10% and it gradually increases to anything $9M+ is 20%. So yes, I'm going to do everything in my power to ensure my kids don't have to pay 59% taxes on the money we give them upon death. It will be in a trust and also given yearly while alive to take full benefits of not taxing the money for "the death transfer". Call it whatever you want, but once I earn the money, I should be able to transfer it to my family without having to pay a transfer tax.

Why? Is there a principled reason for this position? Why is this transfer different from any other?

Also, "anything over $500,001 is taxed at 37%+ (and any over $1M is 40%)" is not quite the whole story, is it? Yes, those are the rates for the taxable amount. But first $13.61 *million* is exempt from the estate tax. So, if you leave an estate if $14.61 million, you will pay a grand total of $345,800 in estate taxes. That is a grand total of 2.36% of the estate. If you really would "argue that most is taxed at Higher rate than regular income taxes," you are a blithering idiot. Unless, of course, you have an estate worth more that about $60 million, in which case, boo-freakin'-hoo.

+1 million. People who complain about estate taxes are modern Marie Antoinettes.

[Anonymous]

So many gross people on this thread. Misery loves company is a real thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s infuriating. I know some people personally who quit their good paying… but “boring”… jobs to pursue their passions and now live off welfare. At least they don’t live near me so I know my money isn’t going to them

Funny how people get infuriated at people with modest incomes scamming the system but shrug their shoulders at people scamming billions of dollars from taxpayer coffers.

The late billionaire Sheldon Adelson, for example, used a complicated trust mechanism called a “grantor retained annuity trust (GRAT)” to “pass on $7.9 billion to his children while avoiding $2.8 billion in gift and estate taxes.”

All smart wealthy people use trusts (and other means) to legally pass on their estates while avoiding estate taxes. Fact is that money was already taxed once, there is absolutely no reason it should be taxed again to transfer it to your kids. Fact is there are plenty of legal ways to avoid this and have been for decades.

We earned our money, 95%+ of it as W2 income and taxed at the highest rate. Absolutely no reason for the govt to take 40-50% (fed and state) of it when we die.

That's your opinion, not a fact. Plenty of advanced economies tax estates at a far higher rate, and their societies are more equal and more harmonious for it. My opinion is that we don't need to have billionaires passing on the bulk of their megafortunes to their heirs tax free while there are hungry children in America who could benefit from better social welfare supports.

See above. Happy to pay my taxes once. I've paid more in State taxes in a SINGLE year than most people will earn in a lifetime. I've already contributed to social welfare programs and happily support them. I'm not a billionaire totally avoiding taxes. Most of our income is W2 or interest and some cap gains. We have no way to shelter it legally, so we pay high taxes yearly. I donate to several organizations of my choosing to locally support at an even better level. But still do not support the govt taxing my money a 2nd time and will utilize all tools possible to avoid that.

I also still believe people should take some responsibility for themselves, and that includes not overpaying for college and expecting others to subsidize you. When it is totally possible to get a good education that is AFFORDABLE.

Sigh. When money is transferred, it is taxed. Whether that's 1099 income, W-2 income, dividends, gambling winnings, or inheritance. When your money is transferred to your kids, it ceases to become your money, and becomes theirs. Hence, it is transferred, and therefore taxed. It *already* receives significant tax preferences - a tax exemption up to a defined amount, and then a lower tax rate than ordinary income.

The "double taxation" argument is made by people who either know better but are advancing an agenda, or are easily gulled by simplistic talking points.

Sure a portion is "protected" at federal level. Soon to be about 50% of that reduced.

Also, anything over $500,001 is taxed at 37%+ (and any over $1M is 40%), so I'd argue that most is taxed at Higher rate than regular income taxes. Given that the max tax rate is currently 37% Then some states start as low as only $1-2M protected. In my state, first M is 10% and it gradually increases to anything $9M+ is 20%. So yes, I'm going to do everything in my power to ensure my kids don't have to pay 59% taxes on the money we give them upon death. It will be in a trust and also given yearly while alive to take full benefits of not taxing the money for "the death transfer". Call it whatever you want, but once I earn the money, I should be able to transfer it to my family without having to pay a transfer tax.

Why? Is there a principled reason for this position? Why is this transfer different from any other?

Also, "anything over $500,001 is taxed at 37%+ (and any over $1M is 40%)" is not quite the whole story, is it? Yes, those are the rates for the taxable amount. But first $13.61 *million* is exempt from the estate tax. So, if you leave an estate if $14.61 million, you will pay a grand total of $345,800 in estate taxes. That is a grand total of 2.36% of the estate. If you really would "argue that most is taxed at Higher rate than regular income taxes," you are a blithering idiot. Unless, of course, you have an estate worth more that about $60 million, in which case, boo-freakin'-hoo.

Not quite that much, but much closer to the $60M than to the "not paying any estate taxes". But don't worry, there are plenty of legal means to protect it. Those means will likely never disappear. So the estate tax levels don't really matter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s infuriating. I know some people personally who quit their good paying… but “boring”… jobs to pursue their passions and now live off welfare. At least they don’t live near me so I know my money isn’t going to them

Funny how people get infuriated at people with modest incomes scamming the system but shrug their shoulders at people scamming billions of dollars from taxpayer coffers.

The late billionaire Sheldon Adelson, for example, used a complicated trust mechanism called a “grantor retained annuity trust (GRAT)” to “pass on $7.9 billion to his children while avoiding $2.8 billion in gift and estate taxes.”

Don’t blame the billionaire for doing this perfectly legal technique, blame the tax code. And lots of wealthy billionaire Democrats do similar legal techniques to lower their taxes.

Don’t blame the loan for givers for using a perfectly legal technique to put more money into the economy.

Well see there's the rub, per the SCOTUS, it's not a perfectly legal technique to forgive student loans. You took on the debt, not the taxpayer. If you failed to read the details of the loan, that's on you, not the taxpayer. Pay up Buttercup!

No that's not what SCOTUS said.

Also, why don't corporations have to pay back debt when they knew the terms of their loan when they declare bankruptcy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He knew he had to get a better paying job to repay the loan, but he didn't want to give up his passion, which was music.

Now that his almost $250K loan has been paid by us taxpayers, he says he wants to go meditate in India with a guru.

Like what the actual f*.

my nephew has a mild SN and had a hard time finding a job after college; he majored in IT. He found a lowish paying job (like $45K) at a nonprofit and is still paying it off while he lives with his single mom because he can't afford to live on his own and pay off the debt. But, the government didn't pay his debt off. I think it's like $50K. Here's someone who's trying and working a job that has potential for growth, even as he has a hard time of it, and then there's this guy with his music passion, and now he can go meditate because we taxpayers basically gave him $250K.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/gen-xer-got-250-000-181801554.html

Yea, I feel bitter.

The optics of this are terrible. Team Biden ought to find working class borrowers who never finished their degree and forgive their modest loans.

Because it almost seems like stories like this and all the six-figure nonprofit wonks going viral are poisoning the well and demonizing low and middle income borrowers trapped in student debt usury.

Why doesn't Biden just cancel the debts of poor borrowers who are in default? I thought I read the average borrower in default on undergrad debt didn't even finish their degree and their original principal borrowed was only 10K-15K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He knew he had to get a better paying job to repay the loan, but he didn't want to give up his passion, which was music.

Now that his almost $250K loan has been paid by us taxpayers, he says he wants to go meditate in India with a guru.

Like what the actual f*.

my nephew has a mild SN and had a hard time finding a job after college; he majored in IT. He found a lowish paying job (like $45K) at a nonprofit and is still paying it off while he lives with his single mom because he can't afford to live on his own and pay off the debt. But, the government didn't pay his debt off. I think it's like $50K. Here's someone who's trying and working a job that has potential for growth, even as he has a hard time of it, and then there's this guy with his music passion, and now he can go meditate because we taxpayers basically gave him $250K.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/gen-xer-got-250-000-181801554.html

Yea, I feel bitter.

The optics of this are terrible. Team Biden ought to find working class borrowers who never finished their degree and forgive their modest loans.

Because it almost seems like stories like this and all the six-figure nonprofit wonks going viral are poisoning the well and demonizing low and middle income borrowers trapped in student debt usury.

Why doesn't Biden just cancel the debts of poor borrowers who are in default? I thought I read the average borrower in default on undergrad debt didn't even finish their degree and their original principal borrowed was only 10K-15K.

That's what they *tried* to do -- capping the amount of loan forgiveness, income capping it, and increasing the forgiveness for those who got Pell grants. Yet that was knocked down at the court. i cannot IMAGINE what this board would say if they only forgave borrowers in default.

God, no one on this board has ever gone into default on their loans because they couldn't pay rent despite working multiple jobs and 70+ hours per week. When i dropped out, that's where I was. State school, loans of $15K, and few nonessential expenses beyond cigarettes (in 1999) it didn't matter because I couldn't find enough money in the budget to be up to date on the loans.

I don't think everyone understands that pay does not grow how hard you work, that hard jobs are not the highest paid, and it wasn't like I could just walk in and say "I worked harder, now pay me $100K" -- it doesn't work like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG -- I wish someone would create a chart that compares the "cost" of student loan forgiveness against the cost of tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations.

Why do Americans think it's totally unfair to forgive student loans but it's totally fine that most US corporations pay almost nothing in taxes?

When Republicans eliminate taxes for the super rich and for corporations, everyone shrugs.

When Democrats eliminate crippling student loan debt for a few thousand people, everyone goes nuts.

Explain it to me like I'm 5.

Easy. The crippling student loan debt for a few thousand people is only crippling because those few thousand people refuse to work harder and get better paying jobs. Anyone with a moral compass takes responsibility for their decisions and holds themselves accountable. Disappointing to have to coexist with people that constantly take the self-indulgent path.

or they chose to take ridiculous amount of loans that are not commensurate with their major/job prospects. All states have good state schools that cost only $25-30K currently. Your good student can get some merit at several of them. Take 5.5K in federal subsidized loans, earn $10K (student) over the year. Now you owe $10-15K for the year. If your parents cannot help with that, then you need to search for a college that gives you more merit.
But if you choose to take out money that you cannot really afford to get a degree that does not pay well, then that is on you. But there are options for college to not put you into any more debt than $27K (total for 4 years). Then you can choose to live frugally for another 2-4 years and make a huge dent in those loans.

These kids need to attend community college, full stop. A lot of them who have no savings and aren’t smart enough to get good merit end up taking out the $10-15k per year because it doesn’t seem like that much at the time. But interest accumulation can be crippling. Even if someone goes for a degree that “pays well” it doesn’t necessarily mean your first job out of college will pay well. It’s really easy to get in over your head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He knew he had to get a better paying job to repay the loan, but he didn't want to give up his passion, which was music.

Now that his almost $250K loan has been paid by us taxpayers, he says he wants to go meditate in India with a guru.

Like what the actual f*.

my nephew has a mild SN and had a hard time finding a job after college; he majored in IT. He found a lowish paying job (like $45K) at a nonprofit and is still paying it off while he lives with his single mom because he can't afford to live on his own and pay off the debt. But, the government didn't pay his debt off. I think it's like $50K. Here's someone who's trying and working a job that has potential for growth, even as he has a hard time of it, and then there's this guy with his music passion, and now he can go meditate because we taxpayers basically gave him $250K.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/gen-xer-got-250-000-181801554.html

Yea, I feel bitter.

Sounds like the music lover has his priorities set. We should all be more like the music lover instead of being angry with the music lover.

It's amazing to me that you see more virtue in what your nephew did. There isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OMG -- I wish someone would create a chart that compares the "cost" of student loan forgiveness against the cost of tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations.

Why do Americans think it's totally unfair to forgive student loans but it's totally fine that most US corporations pay almost nothing in taxes?

When Republicans eliminate taxes for the super rich and for corporations, everyone shrugs.

When Democrats eliminate crippling student loan debt for a few thousand people, everyone goes nuts.

Explain it to me like I'm 5.

+1.

And I say this as someone who paid off loans into my 30s. It sucked! Many times I wished I could go back and tell my 18yo self, and my parents who co-signed on private loans, not to do it. And I wish now that lawmakers would address the underlying issue of college affordability. The system is broken.

But there is way too much going on in this country and world to be bitter towards those who qualify for student loan forgiveness. Just way down on my list of things to be angry about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG -- I wish someone would create a chart that compares the "cost" of student loan forgiveness against the cost of tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations.

Why do Americans think it's totally unfair to forgive student loans but it's totally fine that most US corporations pay almost nothing in taxes?

When Republicans eliminate taxes for the super rich and for corporations, everyone shrugs.

When Democrats eliminate crippling student loan debt for a few thousand people, everyone goes nuts.

Explain it to me like I'm 5.

+1.

And I say this as someone who paid off loans into my 30s. It sucked! Many times I wished I could go back and tell my 18yo self, and my parents who co-signed on private loans, not to do it. And I wish now that lawmakers would address the underlying issue of college affordability. The system is broken.

But there is way too much going on in this country and world to be bitter towards those who qualify for student loan forgiveness. Just way down on my list of things to be angry about.

Totally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He knew he had to get a better paying job to repay the loan, but he didn't want to give up his passion, which was music.

Now that his almost $250K loan has been paid by us taxpayers, he says he wants to go meditate in India with a guru.

Like what the actual f*.

my nephew has a mild SN and had a hard time finding a job after college; he majored in IT. He found a lowish paying job (like $45K) at a nonprofit and is still paying it off while he lives with his single mom because he can't afford to live on his own and pay off the debt. But, the government didn't pay his debt off. I think it's like $50K. Here's someone who's trying and working a job that has potential for growth, even as he has a hard time of it, and then there's this guy with his music passion, and now he can go meditate because we taxpayers basically gave him $250K.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/gen-xer-got-250-000-181801554.html

Yea, I feel bitter.

The optics of this are terrible. Team Biden ought to find working class borrowers who never finished their degree and forgive their modest loans.

Because it almost seems like stories like this and all the six-figure nonprofit wonks going viral are poisoning the well and demonizing low and middle income borrowers trapped in student debt usury.

Why doesn't Biden just cancel the debts of poor borrowers who are in default? I thought I read the average borrower in default on undergrad debt didn't even finish their degree and their original principal borrowed was only 10K-15K.

That's what they *tried* to do -- capping the amount of loan forgiveness, income capping it, and increasing the forgiveness for those who got Pell grants. Yet that was knocked down at the court. i cannot IMAGINE what this board would say if they only forgave borrowers in default.

God, no one on this board has ever gone into default on their loans because they couldn't pay rent despite working multiple jobs and 70+ hours per week. When i dropped out, that's where I was. State school, loans of $15K, and few nonessential expenses beyond cigarettes (in 1999) it didn't matter because I couldn't find enough money in the budget to be up to date on the loans.

I don't think everyone understands that pay does not grow how hard you work, that hard jobs are not the highest paid, and it wasn't like I could just walk in and say "I worked harder, now pay me $100K" -- it doesn't work like that.

We get that. But life is about choices? Why did you start at college and take out loans you couldn't afford? Sounds like you should have started at CC and/or worked a bit first to see if college was the right path for you.

Also you found money for cigarettes and a few non-essential items. If you want to pay off loans/budget correctly, you cut those out. That was likely $100+/month. And you put that $$$ towards loans. You also take on as many jobs as needed to pay the bills. You get a roommate/rent a room in a house to reduce your rent. Many of us lived like that in order to pay off our loans/survive college on a budget.
My weekends in college consisted of making the social choices: I have $6 to spend all weekend, otherwise I won't have $$ for food next week (my grocery budget was $35/week in 1990, very frugal). So I couldn't do things friday sat and Sunday that cost money. I had to pick and choose. That included me working 15+ hours/week while in school, taking 22 credits each semester in engineering and music performance (both are extremely time consuming and challenging majors). When I wasn't in school I was working every break for 50+ hours/whatever hours I could get from my multiple jobs. I did that for 5 years in college, then for another 2 afterwards to pay off my loans---now I had a good job because well engineering major. But I lived frugally for the next 2 years so I could get rid of my $20K+ in loans as quickly as possible and then start living better.

Why? Because I took those loans and it's my responsibility to pay them off. I didn't "do extras" for 7+ years (college and beyond) just so I wouldn't take on more debt.