Education is one of the most essential parts of people’s lives. However, the price of attendance at educational institutions is increasing every year, which limits its availability for individuals. As a consequence of this aspect, student loan debt arises, which grows every year. This paper believes that they should be abolished by the state. This will be an opportunity to ease the financial condition of the country and provide equality and fair treatment to all people. However, the main negative aspects can be identified as abuse of the loan system, the provision of benefits for more affluent students, and not the long-term solution.
Thus, the state should take measures to forgive student loan debts, as this has several positive sides at once. First of all, this initiative will help accelerate the financial development of the country, which is slowed down by 1.617 trillion dollars, where the average student loan is 37.787 dollars (Hanson, 2022). Individuals lose the opportunity to develop and open businesses and take other loans, as they already have an impressive amount of debt. Another advantage is the provision of equality to students, which is reflected in debt forgiveness for both white and colored students experiencing financial difficulties. This is due to the fact that black students often take out more loans due to the low economic condition of families and the colleges they choose for education. The last positive aspect is the provision of fairness by providing students with the opportunity to discharge the debt in bankruptcy, as for all other debtors. The injustice is that automobile or medical charges can be dropped due to the bankruptcy of individuals, but education is not attributed to this possibility.
However, despite the advantages of canceling student loan debt, it is necessary to consider the opposite side. The main argument against debt forgiveness is the disruption of the loan system, which contributes to the formation of individuals’ economic responsibility. The following argument is that wealthier students will most benefit from the initiative since they are more likely to enroll in colleges than children from low-income families (Looney, 2019). The last disadvantage of the initiative is the short-sightedness of this solution, which does not solve the problem of the high cost of education but becomes a quick fix. Thus, it is necessary to pay attention to the leading cause of the crisis and solve it, not its consequences.
In conclusion, this paper considered the need to forgive student loan debt. This is due to the fact that the enormous debt of young people does not allow the country to develop economically. Moreover, canceling debt for students can provide greater equality for them. Another argument for this initiative is the provision of fair conditions for filing for bankruptcy to avoid debt. At the same time, the other side of the dispute believes that this cancellation of student loan debts violates the legislation of the country regarding the financial debts of the population. In addition, it does not contribute to class inequality and has no long-term effectiveness. Therefore, despite the complexity of solving the student loan debt problem, the government can take measures to forgive the debt fully or partially. However, the main attention should be paid to the problem of expensive education and finding ways to provide greater accessibility for individuals.
References
Hanson, M. (2022). Student loan debt statistics. Education Data Initiative. Web.
Looney, A. (2019). How progressive is Senator Elizabeth Warren’s loan forgiveness proposal?. Brookings. Web.