Should student loan debt be eliminated?

Eliminating student loan debt would foster the cost onto the government

Question: Should student loan debt be eliminated?
Position‹2 of 3›: No, student loan debt should not be eliminated
Argument‹2 of 2: Eliminating student loan debt would foster the cost onto the government

The truth of all institutions is that they need money to operate. Some are funded through the government, others through donations. Schools are funded through a mix of the government and . To eliminate would foster all the responsibility of money and aid onto the government.

The argument

Eliminating student loan debt would be a complicated process. For one thing, debt just can't be wiped away nor can the government just create money to circumvent any fall out. To truly eliminate it and keep student loan debt eliminated would cause many problems, both for schools and the government. The cost of running all these schools numbers in the trillions and countries don't just have this money in reserve to hand out. Most countries have their own debt they have yet to pay off. The US is a great example of this, their own debt numbering as high as 1.5 trillion. The US hasn't been debt free since 1835. Removing that debt places the burden on the loan companies and the government which would in turn cause a steep rise in taxes and an extreme decrease in the quality of learning. The money has to come from somewhere and it's most likely many of the smaller colleges would have to close down from a lack of funding. To place all the burden of the cost of schooling onto the federal government is just not feasible. The student loan system was put into place because it was needed to balance out the cost of attending into something affordable. While a ten year payment plan doesn't sound like fun, and isn't, it's much better than the alternative where that payment plan is then turned into a yearly governmental tax that everyone pays until they're dead.

Premises

[P1]Student loan debt cannot simply be wiped away; the cost of educating students must ultimately be paid by someone. [P2] Eliminating student debt would shift trillions in costs onto governments that already carry massive debt of their own. [P3] That shifted burden would force steep tax increases, reduced quality of education, and the closure of smaller colleges unable to secure funding. [C] Therefore, student loan debt should not be eliminated, because doing so would impose an unfeasible cost on the government and the broader public.

Counter-arguments

Student loan debt is a global problem that people from every country has. While the debt isn't fun the money that's flowing between these transactions are necessary. Money keeps the world spinning and while people don't like to admit it or even go so far as to say they hate it what they hate is the greed it causes. The problems it causes and create. People need money, buildings need money, and schools most definitely need money. There can't be a sole existence responsible for all the funding so really, the most logical choice is to have people pay for an education. Education is only required till you're sixteen and have had six years of schooling. Education beyond that is not a requirement or privilege but an opportunity, a choice, though parents would say otherwise. As it's a personal choice, the government is in no way responsible for any one person being able to receive an education. However, it's at the benefit of the country that there are smart, well educated people to take various jobs. Jobs which require extra learning beyond middle school and various PHD's or MD's to have the permission to take on. The system we have in place does ease the way for people to further their education and have a chance to raise themselves up in the world.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The counter agrees the cost must be borne but draws the opposite conclusion about who bears it, holding that since no single body can fund education for everyone, individuals paying for their own is the workable arrangement rather than a burden to be removed. [Rejecting P3] The premise treats the consequences as falling on an unwilling public, where the counter argues the current system already eases access — compulsory schooling ends at sixteen and study beyond it is an opportunity taken by choice, so the loans are the mechanism by which people can pursue that choice and improve their position, and the country benefits from the qualified professionals it produces.