^^Forgot to add that the dischargeable approach greatly increases credit availability but puts all of the responsibility for repayment on the borrower, while the nondischargeable approach limits credit availability but greatly increases the onus on the bank for ensuring repayment.

So many politicians think you can eat your cake and have it too. Many would want to make the debt dischargeable in bankruptcy but also make it very difficult for banks to turn down less credit worthy borrowers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m totally fine with the idea that student loans can’t be discharged during bankruptcy, and I’m against any federally funded loan forgiveness programs.

ME TOO! I took out loans for my degree and I paid them all back. Graduated in 97 with EE degree and 35K in dept. I paid it back 100% by 2002. If they forgive debt to students now I want a refund of my repayment.

+1. If you're taking out 200k to study poetry at a university high on a hilltop that no one has heard of and then can't get a job that services your debt, that isn't my problem. I and many many others paid our debt and it's unfair to those that were responsible/chose traditional career paths and majors etc.

I think the point that most people are trying to make when saying that college loans should be dischargable in bankruptcy is that lenders wouldn't loan someone 200K for a worthless degree if the lenders might be stuck holding the bag.

This is a good point. From a risk management perspective, a bank should have far stricter credit underwriting standards on debt that can be discharged in bankruptcy than on debt that is nondischargeable.

I would be okay with making new student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy so that banks can adapt and revise their underwriting standards. But it should not be retroactive to previously contracted student debt; that would be changing the rules in the middle of the game. And as PPs have pointed out, it is not just unfair to the banks, but also to the many responsible borrowers who have sacrificed to repay their student loans.

Where this should end up politically is another question.

Making student loans nondischargeable is a way to prevent moral hazard on the part of the borrower. The idea is to make sure the borrower repays by blocking the strategy of bankruptcy as a way to avoid paying back the debt. If we were to go to a model of allowing student debt to be dischargeable in bankruptcy, then banks would limit their losses by instituting far stricter lending standards.

The nondischargeable approach makes student loans more available to less credit worthy students. The dischargeable route would limit access to loans as a means for paying for college for those with little means or poor credit histories.

Anonymous wrote:Multigenerational homes allows for everyone to save money. College graduates should live with mom-dad and save their pay until they have saved at least several years worth of salary.

Definitely helps launch

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m totally fine with the idea that student loans can’t be discharged during bankruptcy, and I’m against any federally funded loan forgiveness programs.

ME TOO! I took out loans for my degree and I paid them all back. Graduated in 97 with EE degree and 35K in dept. I paid it back 100% by 2002. If they forgive debt to students now I want a refund of my repayment.

+1. If you're taking out 200k to study poetry at a university high on a hilltop that no one has heard of and then can't get a job that services your debt, that isn't my problem. I and many many others paid our debt and it's unfair to those that were responsible/chose traditional career paths and majors etc.

I think the point that most people are trying to make when saying that college loans should be dischargable in bankruptcy is that lenders wouldn't loan someone 200K for a worthless degree if the lenders might be stuck holding the bag.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Controversial opinion - Money is more important than relationships. Especially in areas like DC. People have no moral compass. Lots of virtue signaling, superficial show of how environmentally friendly one is but shallow deep down.

Another one - Making more money is more important than raising your own kids when they need you the most. Lying to yourself about how much money you really need (not want) for retirement.

One more..
People would rather spend on mortgage than on a good private school. That new million dollar home is more important than prioritizing education. We stay in the boonies in a small, old paid off house and send both our kids to private on a single income of 130k. Kids don’t need Europe vacations, you do. They need time from you. Quality time is a cop out.
Not referring to those who send kidsto very good public schools and have spent the least amount they had to, ro be able to go that public school.

OP, yeah these are controversial but you asked for people’s opinions.

Agree. People definitely downplay how much $$ you need to live a good life often under the guise of -- oh I don't daycare/nannies raising my kid; at least I have work life balance; etc. Give me a break -- $$ is the FIRST thing you and your kids need.

I like this one.

Anonymous wrote:Controversial opinion - Money is more important than relationships. Especially in areas like DC. People have no moral compass. Lots of virtue signaling, superficial show of how environmentally friendly one is but shallow deep down.

Another one - Making more money is more important than raising your own kids when they need you the most. Lying to yourself about how much money you really need (not want) for retirement.

One more..
People would rather spend on mortgage than on a good private school. That new million dollar home is more important than prioritizing education. We stay in the boonies in a small, old paid off house and send both our kids to private on a single income of 130k. Kids don’t need Europe vacations, you do. They need time from you. Quality time is a cop out.
Not referring to those who send kidsto very good public schools and have spent the least amount they had to, ro be able to go that public school.

OP, yeah these are controversial but you asked for people’s opinions.

Agree. People definitely downplay how much $$ you need to live a good life often under the guise of -- oh I don't daycare/nannies raising my kid; at least I have work life balance; etc. Give me a break -- $$ is the FIRST thing you and your kids need.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m totally fine with the idea that student loans can’t be discharged during bankruptcy, and I’m against any federally funded loan forgiveness programs.

ME TOO! I took out loans for my degree and I paid them all back. Graduated in 97 with EE degree and 35K in dept. I paid it back 100% by 2002. If they forgive debt to students now I want a refund of my repayment.

+1. If you're taking out 200k to study poetry at a university high on a hilltop that no one has heard of and then can't get a job that services your debt, that isn't my problem. I and many many others paid our debt and it's unfair to those that were responsible/chose traditional career paths and majors etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m totally fine with the idea that student loans can’t be discharged during bankruptcy, and I’m against any federally funded loan forgiveness programs.

ME TOO! I took out loans for my degree and I paid them all back. Graduated in 97 with EE degree and 35K in dept. I paid it back 100% by 2002. If they forgive debt to students now I want a refund of my repayment.

OMG this is brilliant. I want in on this!

Anonymous wrote:I’m totally fine with the idea that student loans can’t be discharged during bankruptcy, and I’m against any federally funded loan forgiveness programs.

ME TOO! I took out loans for my degree and I paid them all back. Graduated in 97 with EE degree and 35K in dept. I paid it back 100% by 2002. If they forgive debt to students now I want a refund of my repayment.

Anonymous wrote:Controversial opinion - Money is more important than relationships. Especially in areas like DC. People have no moral compass. Lots of virtue signaling, superficial show of how environmentally friendly one is but shallow deep down.

Another one - Making more money is more important than raising your own kids when they need you the most. Lying to yourself about how much money you really need (not want) for retirement.

One more..
People would rather spend on mortgage than on a good private school. That new million dollar home is more important than prioritizing education. We stay in the boonies in a small, old paid off house and send both our kids to private on a single income of 130k. Kids don’t need Europe vacations, you do. They need time from you. Quality time is a cop out.
Not referring to those who send kidsto very good public schools and have spent the least amount they had to, ro be able to go that public school.

OP, yeah these are controversial but you asked for people’s opinions.

Not controversial in my books but I see what you mean. Though I think a Europe vacation can be very meaningful and fun. Agree with all else.

Controversial opinion - Money is more important than relationships. Especially in areas like DC. People have no moral compass. Lots of virtue signaling, superficial show of how environmentally friendly one is but shallow deep down.

Another one - Making more money is more important than raising your own kids when they need you the most. Lying to yourself about how much money you really need (not want) for retirement.

One more..
People would rather spend on mortgage than on a good private school. That new million dollar home is more important than prioritizing education. We stay in the boonies in a small, old paid off house and send both our kids to private on a single income of 130k. Kids don’t need Europe vacations, you do. They need time from you. Quality time is a cop out.
Not referring to those who send kidsto very good public schools and have spent the least amount they had to, ro be able to go that public school.

OP, yeah these are controversial but you asked for people’s opinions.

Anonymous wrote:Multigenerational homes allows for everyone to save money. College graduates should live with mom-dad and save their pay until they have saved at least several years worth of salary.

Not sure how this would help Mom and Dad save money unless they are charging their adult child rent.

Multigenerational homes allows for everyone to save money. College graduates should live with mom-dad and save their pay until they have saved at least several years worth of salary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who is not a moron knows that if you can pay in cash you do. A house, a car, whatever.

Those who argue otherwise are still trying to make it rich. Those who have know otherwise.

Curious PP, what is your income?

Zero debt. 300k HHI. Net worth 7.5 million.

How impressive


~ 3.8M HHI , 38 M net worth 15 M debt


Looks like you're a bit of your league

These figures are meaningless without including your age

They are meaningful at any age

You can’t compare who’s ahead, as the 2 posters seem to want to do, without knowing age. Plus $300K HHI $7.5M net worth screams 2 big law associates around age 30 with trust funds. $15M debt poster seems older because it’s harder to accumulate that much debt at a young age.

If two big law associates have an annual HHI of 300K they are doing it wrong.

Yeah what a weird comment. $300k HHI/$7.5M NW could be any of wide variety of different situations. But one of the very few situations it absolutely is NOT, is two biglaw associates. That's one of the very few things we can rule out.

Lol what? You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. In my circle it’s incredibly common for 2 big law associates right out of law school to have $300K HHI and massive family wealth. In 2 years they will pop out a kid and turn into a one income family with a SAHM. Not sure why everyone makes the assumption that the associates aren’t entry level and this is exactly why ages are important.

I'm the poster people are referring to. I'm 40. Not big law, but did inherit significant equities. 2 working parents, 2 young kids.

Also, I wasn't comparing to anyone - someone responded to me saying I'm out of my league. Which, if he has 15M debt, is probably true. I'd lose sleep over that!

Why would you lose sleep over $15M of debt if you have $38M in net worth, which means you have $53M in assets? Regardless that poster is probably full of shit.

I think the last time pp posted it was $38 M in assets and $15 million in debt (so not $38 net). I don't care enough to go look it up.

Dinner wasn't ready, so I did a search -- I remembered this thread, because the pp with $38 M in assets was arguing that the only way to have significant assets was to have a large amount of income, and there were a whole bunch of people who didn't realize that investments aren't necessarily taxed as income.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/60/763201.page

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who is not a moron knows that if you can pay in cash you do. A house, a car, whatever.

Those who argue otherwise are still trying to make it rich. Those who have know otherwise.

Curious PP, what is your income?

Zero debt. 300k HHI. Net worth 7.5 million.

How impressive


~ 3.8M HHI , 38 M net worth 15 M debt


Looks like you're a bit of your league

These figures are meaningless without including your age

They are meaningful at any age

You can’t compare who’s ahead, as the 2 posters seem to want to do, without knowing age. Plus $300K HHI $7.5M net worth screams 2 big law associates around age 30 with trust funds. $15M debt poster seems older because it’s harder to accumulate that much debt at a young age.

If two big law associates have an annual HHI of 300K they are doing it wrong.

Yeah what a weird comment. $300k HHI/$7.5M NW could be any of wide variety of different situations. But one of the very few situations it absolutely is NOT, is two biglaw associates. That's one of the very few things we can rule out.

Lol what? You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. In my circle it’s incredibly common for 2 big law associates right out of law school to have $300K HHI and massive family wealth. In 2 years they will pop out a kid and turn into a one income family with a SAHM. Not sure why everyone makes the assumption that the associates aren’t entry level and this is exactly why ages are important.

I'm the poster people are referring to. I'm 40. Not big law, but did inherit significant equities. 2 working parents, 2 young kids.

Also, I wasn't comparing to anyone - someone responded to me saying I'm out of my league. Which, if he has 15M debt, is probably true. I'd lose sleep over that!

Why would you lose sleep over $15M of debt if you have $38M in net worth, which means you have $53M in assets? Regardless that poster is probably full of shit.

I think the last time pp posted it was $38 M in assets and $15 million in debt (so not $38 net). I don't care enough to go look it up.