Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 8:40 am Post subject: Billionaire Pays Off 100% of All Student Loans for Class of 2019 - Morehouse
Quote:
Investor and philanthropist Robert F. Smith surprised the Morehouse College class of 2019 with a special graduation gift: He’s going to pay all of their student loan debt.
"My family is going to create a grant to eliminate your student loans!" Smith told the graduates during his commencement address. “You great Morehouse men are bound only by the limits of your own conviction and creativity.”
His gift to the nearly 400 graduating seniors is about $40 million, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Smith, founder of private equity and venture capital firm Vista Equity Partners, is worth about $5 billion, according to Forbes. He was the wealthiest African American in the country in 2018.
He is the only African American to sign the Giving Pledge, the initiative created by billionaires Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet in 2010 to “help address society’s most pressing problems” by shifting “the social norms of philanthropy toward giving more, giving sooner and giving smarter.”
He pledged to give away half his net worth to causes that support equality for African Americans and protect the environment.
Quote:
"I will never forget that my path was paved by my parents, grandparents and generations of African Americans whose names I will never know," he wrote. "Their struggles, their courage, and their progress allowed me to strive and achieve."
The billionaire had already pledged $1 million to Morehouse in January to create the Robert Frederick Smith Scholars Program and an additional $500,000 to design an outdoor study area for students.
A Real American! _________________ I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35812 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 9:15 am Post subject:
Imagine how much it must suck to have failed a class and not been able to graduate on time, or to have accelerated and graduated a year early. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67625 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 9:42 am Post subject:
My niece and nephew must be sorry their son, my nephew, wasn't at Morehouse this year. He graduated 10 years ago. Paying It Forward, GREAT. _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Last edited by jodeke on Tue May 21, 2019 3:08 pm; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67625 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:32 pm Post subject:
adkindo wrote:
seriously, nothing about this sexist institution? Augusta has more female members than females students at Morehouse! I am only kidding.
Are Selma, Mary Baldwin, Chestnut Hill, to name a few all female universities sexist? Jus askin. _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
If this makes the news, that shows you how significant the problem is.
A billionaire putting a drop of water in a near empty bucket shouldn't merit applause. It should merit concern for the problem. Why can a person with so much do so little to fix a problem? Really shows you how big the problem is. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
If this makes the news, that shows you how significant the problem is.
A billionaire putting a drop of water in a near empty bucket shouldn't merit applause. It should merit concern for the problem. Why can a person with so much much do so little to fix a problem? Really shows you how big the problem is.
Her comment is kind of stupid IMO considering her plan would be for college students to afford college via billionaires.
Does anyone know how the free college is supposed to work? Like, is Yale going to be free? Or just all the state schools? Or just select state schools?
If this makes the news, that shows you how significant the problem is.
A billionaire putting a drop of water in a near empty bucket shouldn't merit applause. It should merit concern for the problem. Why can a person with so much do so little to fix a problem? Really shows you how big the problem is.
Only about 5000 Institutes of Higher learning in US
Contributing to the Rich Get Richer and the poor get poorer.. Rich can pay for college while poor borrow and suffer payback
If this makes the news, that shows you how significant the problem is.
A billionaire putting a drop of water in a near empty bucket shouldn't merit applause. It should merit concern for the problem. Why can a person with so much much do so little to fix a problem? Really shows you how big the problem is.
Her comment is kind of stupid IMO considering her plan would be for college students to afford college via billionaires.
Does anyone know how the free college is supposed to work? Like, is Yale going to be free? Or just all the state schools? Or just select state schools?
Prior to 1966, All CSU & UC campuses were tuition free, then Reagan got his hands on the Governors Office and changed everything. Private colleges were never free. _________________ I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
If this makes the news, that shows you how significant the problem is.
A billionaire putting a drop of water in a near empty bucket shouldn't merit applause. It should merit concern for the problem. Why can a person with so much much do so little to fix a problem? Really shows you how big the problem is.
Her comment is kind of stupid IMO considering her plan would be for college students to afford college via billionaires.
Does anyone know how the free college is supposed to work? Like, is Yale going to be free? Or just all the state schools? Or just select state schools?
Prior to 1966, All CSU & UC campuses were tuition free, then Reagan got his hands on the Governors Office and changed everything. Private colleges were never free.
Right but I’m talking about the current proposals by many Dems to make college free. I should probably look into it, but to someone who hasn’t, it sounds like Yale would free too or is the policy limited in some fashion?
Would everyone be able to afford Yale/Harvard under some of these programs so that the only barrier is merit?
I can't imagine a scenario where private colleges would be forced to participate. Since they are private institutions. The concrete plans Ive seen are either for community college or state schools only. But I've only seen 2 proposals beyond the theoretical fantasy stage. _________________ I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
If this makes the news, that shows you how significant the problem is.
A billionaire putting a drop of water in a near empty bucket shouldn't merit applause. It should merit concern for the problem. Why can a person with so much much do so little to fix a problem? Really shows you how big the problem is.
Her comment is kind of stupid IMO considering her plan would be for college students to afford college via billionaires.
Does anyone know how the free college is supposed to work? Like, is Yale going to be free? Or just all the state schools? Or just select state schools?
Prior to 1966, All CSU & UC campuses were tuition free, then Reagan got his hands on the Governors Office and changed everything. Private colleges were never free.
Right but I’m talking about the current proposals by many Dems to make college free. I should probably look into it, but to someone who hasn’t, it sounds like Yale would free too or is the policy limited in some fashion?
Would everyone be able to afford Yale/Harvard under some of these programs so that the only barrier is merit?
Weird question. Public universities free (or tuition heavily subsidized), obviously private universities charge what they want. Educated citizens should be an investment for States. There are several ideas that could be very interesting to help subsidize education: one is that tuition is not charged until after the student has graduated and found a high paying job (obviously with course and GPA requirements that must be met for continued enrollment), after which a percentage of the salary is deducted and paid to the university for three to five years.
Weird question. Public universities free (or tuition heavily subsidized), obviously private universities charge what they want. Educated citizens should be an investment for States. There are several ideas that could be very interesting to help subsidize education: one is that tuition is not charged until after the student has graduated and found a high paying job (obviously with course and GPA requirements that must be met for continued enrollment), after which a percentage of the salary is deducted and paid to the university for three to five years.
Why is it weird?
AOC just said that private universities (such as Morehouse) should be affordable (i.e. no loans needed). So I assume that would include MIT, Yale, Harvard, etc as well, no?
I brought it up because some of the folks are marketing it as "free college" but it's not free college. It's a free college OPTION.
Anyway, I'm not entirely opposed to having an option that is low or no cost. We already have that with public schools anyway. They likely won't be very good, but, it would be low cost so that is good.
I'd favor a system of shared responsibility for education. The individual, an employer, and society all share in the benefits of education and I think they all should have a hand in paying for it.
1) Students qualify for government tuition assistance credits based on their grades. Example, get a 3,8 - 4.0 in high school and qualify for a government grant of 25% of your tuition. Get a 3.6 - 3.8 and your qualify for a government grant for 20% of your tuition. And so on. Each year while in college you qualify for grant level based on your grades in the preceding year.
2) Students can then get interest free loans from the government for the remainder of their need. Remove for profit banks from the equation all together.
3) After graduation, an employer must match employees repayment on their loans,similar to IRA matching for their retirement.
In this way, all three beneficiaries of education are sharing the cost burdens. Without resorting to "Free Tuition" schemes which pretty universally lower the quality of education. _________________ I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 8:38 pm Post subject:
Elite universities are another way of perpetuating an aristocracy. That is their number one purpose. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
I'd favor a system of shared responsibility for education. The individual, an employer, and society all share in the benefits of education and I think they all should have a hand in paying for it.
1) Students qualify for government tuition assistance credits based on their grades. Example, get a 3,8 - 4.0 in high school and qualify for a government grant of 25% of your tuition. Get a 3.6 - 3.8 and your qualify for a government grant for 20% of your tuition. And so on. Each year while in college you qualify for grant level based on your grades in the preceding year.
2) Students can then get interest free loans from the government for the remainder of their need. Remove for profit banks from the equation all together.
3) After graduation, an employer must match employees repayment on their loans,similar to IRA matching for their retirement.
In this way, all three beneficiaries of education are sharing the cost burdens. Without resorting to "Free Tuition" schemes which pretty universally lower the quality of education.
This won’t prevent the price of college from continuing to skyrocket though would it?
On #3, I see lots of problems. IRA matching is the exception, not the rule, and if you make it a rule, are you not worried about furthering gigworker utilization? How is a small business going to afford this? How would a company repay? Paid out as taxable income or directly paying the loan? See what a 22 yr old does when given $500 extra cash every month. (HINT: It won’t go to the loan)
Also, you would make it a financial incentive not to hire a recent graduate, at least, not on a full-time basis, or, their salaries would fall to pay for the loan repayment netting them out the same.
I'd favor a system of shared responsibility for education. The individual, an employer, and society all share in the benefits of education and I think they all should have a hand in paying for it.
1) Students qualify for government tuition assistance credits based on their grades. Example, get a 3,8 - 4.0 in high school and qualify for a government grant of 25% of your tuition. Get a 3.6 - 3.8 and your qualify for a government grant for 20% of your tuition. And so on. Each year while in college you qualify for grant level based on your grades in the preceding year.
2) Students can then get interest free loans from the government for the remainder of their need. Remove for profit banks from the equation all together.
3) After graduation, an employer must match employees repayment on their loans,similar to IRA matching for their retirement.
In this way, all three beneficiaries of education are sharing the cost burdens. Without resorting to "Free Tuition" schemes which pretty universally lower the quality of education.
This won’t prevent the price of college from continuing to skyrocket though would it?
On #3, I see lots of problems. IRA matching is the exception, not the rule, and if you make it a rule, are you not worried about furthering gigworker utilization? How is a small business going to afford this? How would a company repay? Paid out as taxable income or directly paying the loan? See what a 22 yr old does when given $500 extra cash every month. (HINT: It won’t go to the loan)
Also, you would make it a financial incentive not to hire a recent graduate, at least, not on a full-time basis, or, their salaries would fall to pay for the loan repayment netting them out the same.
The only thing that will prevent the cost of college from rising is accepting an erosion in the quality of education. Colleges are in competition with each other to attract the best and brightest. Colleges which spend the most generally provide the best results. It's that expected enhanced opportunity that students are willing to pay more for.
Re: IRA style loan repayment matching, it's pretty easy. Since the government controls the loan, it simply offers a tax credit for participation, exactly as it does when a company hires and Ex felon, or someone who was previously on welfare. Participate in the Loan Repayment matching program and you receive an incentivised tax credit.
And when it comes to hiring new employees, just like a company can't order a background check until AFTER it's tendered an offer of employment, and it can only legally deny employment if the background check exposes something directly related to the job in question, then a prospective employees loan status is to be treated similarly.
And the employee controls the repayment amount. If one month he chooses to make a $500 payment, then his employer is responsible for a $500 match. If the next month he decides to make the minimum $100 payment, then that's what his employer is responsible for. Employers will simply pay these matching payments as a line item on their quarterly returns )or what ever their current tax payment regime is).
The idea that a company somehow deserves a quality worker without a cost is antiquated. An employer understands the value of spending #100,000 dollars on a machine that can allow 2 workers to accomplish the output of 10. So too must he understand the value added of higher quality employees which can enhance his business beyond what lesser quality employees would. When his bottom line is enhanced, he needs to understand that's not free and comes at a cost. _________________ I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
I'd favor a system of shared responsibility for education. The individual, an employer, and society all share in the benefits of education and I think they all should have a hand in paying for it.
1) Students qualify for government tuition assistance credits based on their grades. Example, get a 3,8 - 4.0 in high school and qualify for a government grant of 25% of your tuition. Get a 3.6 - 3.8 and your qualify for a government grant for 20% of your tuition. And so on. Each year while in college you qualify for grant level based on your grades in the preceding year.
2) Students can then get interest free loans from the government for the remainder of their need. Remove for profit banks from the equation all together.
3) After graduation, an employer must match employees repayment on their loans,similar to IRA matching for their retirement.
In this way, all three beneficiaries of education are sharing the cost burdens. Without resorting to "Free Tuition" schemes which pretty universally lower the quality of education.
This won’t prevent the price of college from continuing to skyrocket though would it?
On #3, I see lots of problems. IRA matching is the exception, not the rule, and if you make it a rule, are you not worried about furthering gigworker utilization? How is a small business going to afford this? How would a company repay? Paid out as taxable income or directly paying the loan? See what a 22 yr old does when given $500 extra cash every month. (HINT: It won’t go to the loan)
Also, you would make it a financial incentive not to hire a recent graduate, at least, not on a full-time basis, or, their salaries would fall to pay for the loan repayment netting them out the same.
The only thing that will prevent the cost of college from rising is accepting an erosion in the quality of education. Colleges are in competition with each other to attract the best and brightest. Colleges which spend the most generally provide the best results. It's that expected enhanced opportunity that students are willing to pay more for.
Re: IRA style loan repayment matching, it's pretty easy. Since the government controls the loan, it simply offers a tax credit for participation, exactly as it does when a company hires and Ex felon, or someone who was previously on welfare. Participate in the Loan Repayment matching program and you receive an incentivised tax credit.
And when it comes to hiring new employees, just like a company can't order a background check until AFTER it's tendered an offer of employment, and it can only legally deny employment if the background check exposes something directly related to the job in question, then a prospective employees loan status is to be treated similarly.
And the employee controls the repayment amount. If one month he chooses to make a $500 payment, then his employer is responsible for a $500 match. If the next month he decides to make the minimum $100 payment, then that's what his employer is responsible for. Employers will simply pay these matching payments as a line item on their quarterly returns )or what ever their current tax payment regime is).
The idea that a company somehow deserves a quality worker without a cost is antiquated. An employer understands the value of spending #100,000 dollars on a machine that can allow 2 workers to accomplish the output of 10. So too must he understand the value added of higher quality employees which can enhance his business beyond what lesser quality employees would. When his bottom line is enhanced, he needs to understand that's not free and comes at a cost.
I guess what I'm saying is that adding this burden/cost, only incentivizes companies to continue hiring recent college grads as gigworkers aka contractors. They are already doing this as a result of the cost of healthcare and other benefits and taxes, adding more cost will only exacerbate that.
I understand what you're saying but I just don't see how adding incremental cost to hiring a younger employee nets them a more quality employee that they'd be willing to pay that incremental cost for. And it's not a cost per se, it's a tax, effectively. It's not like companies have a shortage of access to candidates with college degrees as it is. So if we passed your law tomorrow, what exactly would companies be getting that they couldn't already get today?
I'd favor a system of shared responsibility for education. The individual, an employer, and society all share in the benefits of education and I think they all should have a hand in paying for it.
1) Students qualify for government tuition assistance credits based on their grades. Example, get a 3,8 - 4.0 in high school and qualify for a government grant of 25% of your tuition. Get a 3.6 - 3.8 and your qualify for a government grant for 20% of your tuition. And so on. Each year while in college you qualify for grant level based on your grades in the preceding year.
2) Students can then get interest free loans from the government for the remainder of their need. Remove for profit banks from the equation all together.
3) After graduation, an employer must match employees repayment on their loans,similar to IRA matching for their retirement.
In this way, all three beneficiaries of education are sharing the cost burdens. Without resorting to "Free Tuition" schemes which pretty universally lower the quality of education.
This won’t prevent the price of college from continuing to skyrocket though would it?
On #3, I see lots of problems. IRA matching is the exception, not the rule, and if you make it a rule, are you not worried about furthering gigworker utilization? How is a small business going to afford this? How would a company repay? Paid out as taxable income or directly paying the loan? See what a 22 yr old does when given $500 extra cash every month. (HINT: It won’t go to the loan)
Also, you would make it a financial incentive not to hire a recent graduate, at least, not on a full-time basis, or, their salaries would fall to pay for the loan repayment netting them out the same.
The only thing that will prevent the cost of college from rising is accepting an erosion in the quality of education. Colleges are in competition with each other to attract the best and brightest. Colleges which spend the most generally provide the best results. It's that expected enhanced opportunity that students are willing to pay more for.
Re: IRA style loan repayment matching, it's pretty easy. Since the government controls the loan, it simply offers a tax credit for participation, exactly as it does when a company hires and Ex felon, or someone who was previously on welfare. Participate in the Loan Repayment matching program and you receive an incentivised tax credit.
And when it comes to hiring new employees, just like a company can't order a background check until AFTER it's tendered an offer of employment, and it can only legally deny employment if the background check exposes something directly related to the job in question, then a prospective employees loan status is to be treated similarly.
And the employee controls the repayment amount. If one month he chooses to make a $500 payment, then his employer is responsible for a $500 match. If the next month he decides to make the minimum $100 payment, then that's what his employer is responsible for. Employers will simply pay these matching payments as a line item on their quarterly returns )or what ever their current tax payment regime is).
The idea that a company somehow deserves a quality worker without a cost is antiquated. An employer understands the value of spending #100,000 dollars on a machine that can allow 2 workers to accomplish the output of 10. So too must he understand the value added of higher quality employees which can enhance his business beyond what lesser quality employees would. When his bottom line is enhanced, he needs to understand that's not free and comes at a cost.
I guess what I'm saying is that adding this burden/cost, only incentivizes companies to continue hiring recent college grads as gigworkers aka contractors. They are already doing this as a result of the cost of healthcare and other benefits and taxes, adding more cost will only exacerbate that.
I understand what you're saying but I just don't see how adding incremental cost to hiring a younger employee nets them a more quality employee that they'd be willing to pay that incremental cost for. And it's not a cost per se, it's a tax, effectively. It's not like companies have a shortage of access to candidates with college degrees as it is. So if we passed your law tomorrow, what exactly would companies be getting that they couldn't already get today?
The point is there needs to be a change in the thinking re: the value of labor. It's not just what does the company get. There needs to be an equal focus on what does labor get, and simple legislation can force the realignment of this thinking. When a company produces $100 million for the economy, and management receives $60 million, Investors receive $25 million, and labor receives $15 million, the equation is out of kilter. The whole paradigm has to be reconsidered and labor clearly needs to receive a greater share of the proceeds of productivity. _________________ I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
The point is there needs to be a change in the thinking re: the value of labor. It's not just what does the company get. There needs to be an equal focus on what does labor get, and simple legislation can force the realignment of this thinking. When a company produces $100 million for the economy, and management receives $60 million, Investors receive $25 million, and labor receives $15 million, the equation is out of kilter. The whole paradigm has to be reconsidered and labor clearly needs to receive a greater share of the proceeds of productivity.
Well, I think you have to be very careful here.
Either the companies get to choose who they hire, or they don't.
If they get to choose, then, increasing the costs of hiring an employee on a full-time basis will only incentivize companies to hire on a non full-time basis (as contractors/consultants/etc where the benefits rules do not apply).
If they do not get to decide who they hire and for how much, and the federal government is going to tell them, I think that is a very dangerous game.
There is no option based in reality where you can increase the cost of hiring an employee to infinity AND give the employer the option to hire them AND they will also hire lots of people.
These are jobs without any full time benefits at all. Adding additional cost to that, without offering some kind of return, will only accelerate this. Or, companies will just say, oh you have a student loan? Pass. I'll hire this candidate who doesn't have the added cost burden.
The only way to add cost, without offering a return on that cost, and still get your desired outcome is to require it through threat of force.
These are jobs without any full time benefits at all. Adding additional cost to that, without offering some kind of return, will only accelerate this. Or, companies will just say, oh you have a student loan? Pass. I'll hire this candidate who doesn't have the added cost burden.
The only way to add cost, without offering a return on that cost, and still get your desired outcome is to require it through threat of force.
Again, legislation deals with these issue easily. Lower the threshold to 5 hours/ week that all employees have to be treated the same, and the incentive for the "gig" economy dissipates. If there is no reward from a company skirting it's responsibilities, then it's behaviour changes. If an employer offers a benefit to some employees, then it should be offered to all employees. Again, the model of American business re labor is in serious need of a reassessment. _________________ I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
