While this is better than nothing, I would rather have my tax dollars paid for free higher education with oversight on the quality of the education and how the money is used. Blanket forgiveness would encourage bad actors from offering useless degrees at high cost imo
Subsidizing tuition is nothing new, loans and grants have been around for decades and yeah those (especially the private loans) drove up tuition mercilessly. Neither side should be ignored here – just because there are structural problems does not mean that we should shy away from lifting the sceptre of debt. We need to address both problems.
it would be even easier to start with how current cost education is handled. my student loan situation would be much better if my advisor at my state uni had actually been incentivized to be an advisor. instead she put off meeting with me until the second semester of my senior year. note i didn't say last semester of my senior year.
How about regulating the actual costs of college or how loans work instead of just helping an arbitrary group of students pay? This reminds me of the Affordable Care Act all over again.
Having not seen the actual law or executive order or whatever legal reference document, one thing that has not been clearly covered by the media or in debates or even the studentaid.gov website is whether or not this law applies only to current federal loan borrowers, or also extends to those under the prescribed income limits who paid off their federal loans years, or even decades ago.
It is definitely not the latter and that’s what makes it unfair. If it was fair, they would cut the same $10K check to everyone that had paid for higher education in the last X years and meets the income criteria.
Are you sure? What’s your source? Even the Biden administration is cryptic on this point. After posting my original comment, I’ve been doing additional research.
Thanks for the link. I don’t read the news so it’s the first time I’m seeing it. I didn’t see anything in there that alluded to people not currently in debt getting anything which matches what I had read in the past when this policy first surfaced.
Congress holds the powers of the purse and this is an executive order by a president a few weeks away from midterm elections. This is going to be litigated.
My comment is not concerned with legality - I’ll leave that to congress and the courts. I’m merely pointing out the obfuscation of eligibility requirements.
There are tax implications to debt forgiveness in some states, unless those states change their laws, so be careful about rushing to file. The filing deadline is not until Dec. 31, 2023.
In what cases would it be better to not take the forgiveness to avoid the taxes? Would you not take the forgiveness and borrow to pay the taxes if you had to? You’re coming out ahead regardless.
The question is not if but rather when. Hopefully some of the states will change their laws to not count student loan debt forgiveness as income, but they haven't had time to do so yet.
Even at an extortionate 30% APR and assuming a worst case 10% state income tax rate, that puts payments at ~$100/month to save ~$17k assuming $2k in tax on $20k forgiven (plus interest).
I cannot speak to all states, but some will offer a payment plan at prime plus some basis points if you can’t afford your tax due at tax time. That’s cheap money to retire a chunk of debt.
My concern would be those folks trying to block debt forgiveness efforts, and their chances of success. Better to get it done sooner and pay some tax versus holding out and possibly getting nothing.
2. The students who agreed to the debt for receiving the services of the universities.
3. And everyone else, who had nothing to do with the above transaction. Many of this group were working class who never went to school or people who already paid their school debts long ago.
There is no way of looking at that scenario and saying that group #3 should be the one paying. It so deeply wrong that I almost feel ashamed watching people defend the heist.
If the government forcibly clawed back the money from the schools and the admins and the professors and (yes) the fat endowments, the media would howl bloody murder. But it would be relatively fair.
I am probably going to get 10K forgiven. Unshackling people from debt is awesome. Hopefully they figure out how to do this regularly. Sucks if you don't like it! Hopefully I can redirect the money to more fruitful enterprises... like anything else.
The massive increase in college tuition is totally out of proportion based on wage growth and honestly it's not healthy for the middle class to be forced into an infinite debt cycle forever, growing, like clockwork.
I worked my way through and commuted, didn't go to a nice school, 2 years of CC and graduated debt free.
Now I'm expected to pay for your debt because you were dumb and got an expensive degree that wasn't worth it? Piss off, I could have had a semester abroad or two, but instead I spent my summers working at Walmart and working construction.
They have been rolling out in stages from what I have gathered. I haven't really explored it too deeply because I was waiting for the overall framework to be made precise. Initially it was just some specific groups of people, and then they have been expanding it in stages. 6 months ago, another group of people (mostly focused on victims of for-profit college scams) received similar debt forgiveness and some sort of compensation I think (might be wrong).
Some cynics are saying this has been strategically planned for the midterm elections coming up but this has been planned for a long time and honestly, its pretty cool to see something that was a talking point that actually affected me as a citizen that seemed to crystallize before and during Biden's campaign and actually come to pass in the near-future.
I actually think that education should be free, but with strings attached. The US college cost is growing, administrative overhead is growing, admission process is often not transparent. Once it is fixed and controlled higher ed should be free with a certain level of commitment. For things like medical school, which are ones of the most expensive ones, working for a few years at public hospitals can be a requirement for getting such education for free.
But this was done in the opposite direction, some people made really bad financial decisions. Some people opted not to pursue college degree, precisely because of cost. Why the latter should be paying for the former?
Also, let me ask you this: when you got your degree, did you go to a community college first to pick up some credits and transferred to save some costs?
I didn't, I was at a liberal arts school, realized an economics BS was basically distilled bullshit, decided to study math and comp sci instead, went to Maryland the next semester (maryland.edu)
My father and mother graciously picked up the tab for my studies and he is 76, and should be given a break from indefinite indentured servitude because its too expensive to send your kids to school. My sister went to VT which was more expensive, but at least my family tried to do what they could for their kids.
Sorry if you don't approve but I will literally send him a check for $10K for being such a champ throughout my life right after getting this debt forgiven because I care more about my family and all the hard work that was done to enable me to sit where I am in life, with the freedoms and happiness that have come with having a highly technical education, which lead
to several roles at Goldman Sachs and other very significant and impactful developments in my life.
It's not relevant but I made my parents a big chunk of change last year via trading and it makes me happy that they are getting a break.
Fuck the current system.
To answer your questions:
> Why the latter should be paying for the former?
I pay for current Social Security beneficiaries every 2 weeks, how is this different? I pay into my 401k for future Arthur, but he will be happier in 20 years for my contributions. And honestly? going to college probably makes anyone a little bit less of a dumbass than if they hadn't gone. Is that really that hard to fathom? It is worth it in the aggregate. Why bail out banks as opposed to bailing out humans from contracts creating via guilt and literal academic/skillset "FOMO" ?
> when you got your degree, did you go to a community college first to pick up some credits and transferred to save some costs?
I went to a state school, is that better? How much better would it have been if I did do 2 years at CC before going to Maryland? I think that it is crazy that I'm even answering. The first 2 year curriculum at Maryland is much more challenging than the equivalent ar Montgomery College, so I got more out of whatever the equivalent would have been?
No offense but... yes, I got a ton out of my time at Maryland and I am happy that my outcome was positive. Telling people to spend less if they get debt forgiveness is just silly, the outcomes vis-a-vis what you spend are less relevant than your economic impact after leaving school
P.S. I think I had 17 AP credits transfer over from high school if that makes you feel better. Even cheaper than paying for CC!
I also agree that tertiery education should be free, so glad we agree on that more fundamental point. I am biased on this topic but seriously, its super fucking awesome Biden + administration is following through with this. Even if its just for primaries, this is so great for me and I support this.
Somehow I feel OK about that given the fact that the three generations before me didn't give that much thought. Sorry! See how that sucks? It does suck! But I am luckily 1.3k USD away from being income excluded so maybe for once not aggressively pursuing salary will get me an extra 10k! Magic!!
too bad it loads 3 trackers and puts all your personal data into salesforce. i think governments shouldn't be allowed to share personal data like this with corporations--e.g., software/servers should have to be on-prem.
My wife’s siblings all avoided college to avoid taking on debt that they didn’t think they could pay off. They worked low wage jobs during the years their peers attended university on borrowed money.
This blatantly unfair debt forgiveness is nothing but a transparent bid to make friends of a subset of the population perceived as more valuable than the subset of which it will make enemies.
Why would you expect other’s sympathies to lie with your partner when this policy takes away from people who have families of their own?
Do you have this same feeling against Medicare, even though you aren't benefitting from the program directly? Against disability pay? Against food stamps? Against Earned Income Tax Credits? Against Low Income Housing Tax Credits? Homeowner tax rebates? Business tax credits? Half of your property taxes going to schools when you don't have children.
Talked to a guy just today paying over $6k a year just for schools but is childfree. I myself am paying about $3k of my annual property tax straight to local schools yet I do not have kids yet. That's at least $250 every month I'm paying.
Tons of taxpayer money gets paid for all sorts of things we don't benefit from directly. If you're not for any of it, so be it, but if you're not, and you're so against 'policies that take away from people' presumably you mean tax money funding these programs, you should probably be equally angry about pretty much all of these.
I also avoided getting student loans for a while, dropping out of college so I wouldn't take them out, and it severely stunted my salary trajectory because of it, working in places like Wal-mart shipping rooms for $7.50 an hour in my early 20s when I could have had a degree and made 6x more than that.
I eventually did get student loans and finished my degree, and paid them all off shortly before they announced this debt relief. I'm still all for it, as I've seen countless people crippled by student debt.
>Do you have this same feeling against Medicare, even though you aren't benefitting from the program directly? Against disability pay? Against food stamps? Against Earned Income Tax Credits? Against Low Income Housing Tax Credits? Homeowner tax rebates? Business tax credits? Half of your property taxes going to schools when you don't have children.
All of those things are available to me if I get down on my luck so they make sense. And I don’t have to have children — I was a child once and benefited from public schools. If you didn’t, you had it available to you and your parents chose not to.
How is this the same thing? When might I in my life directly benefit from this loan forgiveness like all of those things you listed?
With that logic, any program to redistribute any money from any group to any other group is fine. Somebody is being helped; it's okay if not everybody is being helped in the same moment, right?
As a hypothetical, you’re arguing that society should have more sympathy for your wife’s family than GP’s partner’s family?
How exactly are we supposed to litigate a “wife’s family vs other wife/husband’s family” debate in these terms? Did the people working low-wage jobs spend time on food stamps? Section 8? Subsidized phone service?
If the answer is no, do you think that people working low-income jobs do not, on average, take advantage of public money in any way?
> As a hypothetical, you’re arguing that society should have more sympathy for your wife’s family than GP’s partner’s family?
No, I'm arguing that taking away from the general public to provide for a subset of people requires that the subset boundaries be well justified. Good examples are "people who are poor", and "people who are sick". A bad example would be "people who owe money on their house in 2022". Do those people benefit from debt forgiveness? Of course! And I'm sure they'd be very grateful for it. Meanwhile, people who decided to rent in 2022 or pay their house off in 2021 are footing the bill, for no discernible reason.
> How exactly are we supposed to litigate a “wife’s family vs other wife/husband’s family” debate in these terms? Did the people working low-wage jobs spend time on food stamps? Section 8? Subsidized phone service?
Those are just benefits for poor people. Those are good, and though some of them could stand to be "ramped" better, they're generally the right idea. Again, the problem is selecting a highly arbitrary subset of people while excluding their peers who differ only in the decisions they made (to take out a loan or not, to pay off a loan quickly or not). The boundaries don't even bother selecting for people in real need. 125k/250k household income? Contemplate those numbers for a minute. So you went to college and you have a world-class job in the 90th percentile of the USA and you're getting money from the government to give you that boost you need so you can, what, remodel your home theater a year sooner than you planned?
> If the answer is no, do you think that people working low-income jobs do not, on average, take advantage of public money in any way?
People with no degrees driving our food to us and our garbage away can take public money, yes. Being against any form of wealth redistribution is light-years away from being against this one particular redistribution.
How do people that got fooled into useless degrees that end up working low-wage jobs anyway factor into this? For example the people that fell victim to the likes of Devry that are only now (after decades of payments!) looking at maybe getting their debt erased due to a lengthy and complicated class action lawsuit.
There is a huge industry based around selling people on the value of a college degree. It is very competitive and aggressive and wholly uncoupled from the actual value of a degree. There are quite a lot of poor people working at McDonald’s and Walmart with student debt.
But fuck those people because some engineers might have a slightly reduced monthly payment is your line of reasoning?
I don’t think you’re even trying to understand what I’m saying. I don’t think it’s wrong to give genuinely struggling people, including students, money. I think it’s wrong to draw the particular box that this policy drew: people with outstanding student debt and income below 125k/250k. That is a bad boundary. There are people excluded who should clearly be included, and people included who should clearly be excluded.
Which of the following scenarios is preferable to you?
A. People that make under $125k get $10,000 of student debt forgiven
B. Nothing happens. Everyone’s debt stays the same.
Are you aware that in reality, complaining about this happening for people that make $124k is exactly the same as complaining about this happening for people that make $15k? Are you aware that by pointing out that this helps people making 90th percentile money you’re also admitting that 90% of people do not make that much?
There phrase “throwing the baby out with the bath water” comes to mind.
I think one of the things you're saying is that "whatever legislation ends up passed was the best legislation that anybody was capable of passing in the current political environment", which is sort of a truism. Could these exact politicians, in this portion of their election cycles, and with this opposition, etc, etc, have passed something better? Almost by definition no, because those are all the parameters of the system. A different result would imply a different upstream.
You're also misrepresenting "B. Nothing happens. Everyone's debt stays the same." That's not an accurate description. Every expensive program that gets rejected alleviates a little pressure on all the other programs that might be put in place, and the ones that get accepted put pressure on everything else to get rejected. It's not easy to say what those 400 billion would have been spent on if it weren't this, so answering the question of whether I'd pick A or B isn't easy. I personally don't think that a modified version getting passed instead that gives out less money but to a broader set of people (broader in some ways, narrower in others; the income threshold should definitely be lower) is all that unlikely. Frankly I think the version we got is surprising. So I suppose that I would pick B, fully expecting the federal government to spend 400 billion on something else that I probably won't be 100% happy with either, but which I think is more likely than not to be an improvement over what we got.
This is a binary situation. A year ago, nobody’s debt was getting forgiven. Today, some people’s debt is being forgiven. You are making the argument that the situation a year ago is preferable because of your desire for stricter means testing.
I am glad that you were honest about picking B. To my earlier point of “fuck Walmart and McDonald’s employees with student debt because some engineers might have a slightly reduced monthly payment” is in fact your stance. By your own admission you actually do not care about the burden that student debt has on poor people, your position is solely about the “wrong” type of person getting help.
I cannot fathom pretending that I care about poor people while also saying they should have crippling debt to suit my feelings.
I feel like I could literally copy and paste my reply to your earlier comment and it would work as a response to this one, but I guess I'll just try explaining it in a different way.
The way you're talking about this policy could be used to justify literally any wealth redistrubtion to the needy, no matter the amount or criteria. How would you feel if instead a policy were enacted that spent 400 billion to pay of 10k from everybody's mortage, so long as their income was less than 125k/250k (single/household)? I think that would also be a bad policy, because while it would absolutely help people, the selection criteria excludes very similar people who we have reason to believe are more in need (same demographic and same income but rent instead of own). It also includes people who are clearly not in need (high end of that income range is very low on the heirarchy of needy in this country).
Even if you're in favor of that policy as well, I'm sure we could come up with one that you'd oppose, even if it did help a lot of people in need. Maybe the mortgage policy doesn't include a restriction to "primary residence", so a bunch of landlords get to benefit from it as well as long as they're not making >125k. So, by opposing that policy's enactment, are you saying "fuck you" to the people it would have benefited that were actually in need? Or are you just holding your leaders accountable for doing their job better?
> By your own admission you actually do not care about the burden that student debt has on poor people, your position is solely about the “wrong” type of person getting help.
My position--and I think I've been extremely clear about this--is that help should be distributed according to well-justified critiria. Both exclusion and inclusion criteria need to be carefully considered to minimize the degree to which we help people with less need more than we help people with more need. I think everybody probably agrees with that, so it feels silly to state it. I think you're just confused by the way I'm modeling the hypothetical world where this policy is not enacted. By all means, let there be 400 billion dollars allocated to social welfare. I just think this particular policy is bad spending.
Also let me just say that if you're going to frame a reply using the assumption that I am just some evil scrooge who is conspiring to undermine all welfare programs to deprive the needy, and that I'm lying through my teeth when I say I'm fine with the money being spent I just want it to be spent better, then please just don't reply at all. I'm here for discussions, not flame wars.
I think the problem is that the current “solution” is simply a band-aid. While it may help some, it will not solve the issue. Could make it worse too.
I’d say it’s a good first step, but the government should walk the whole way.
Wishing you luck!
There is no such thing as forgiveness for loans - its always paid by someone.
This is, in essence, transferring the debt from people who graduated college to people who - on average - did not go to college. The most regressive invisible tax hike we have ever had but sure. . . yay.
And yet we forgave PPP loans which was $742 billion forgiven vs $400 billion for student loan forgiveness.
This is, in essence, transferring the debt from people who own businesses to people who - on average - do not own businesses. The _actual_ most regressive invisible tax hike we have ever had but sure. . . yay.
> It was forgiven, but it all went to my employees.
Isn't getting their labour for free (well, paid for by the taxpayer) pretty much the same as company owners just being handed that 87k? It's money the company didn't have to spend on wages. Were your employees not able to work? (Not intended as criticism - more of an observation. I don't know the real situation etc).
If the economy and the ability for my employees to work we're the same, then indeed it would have been bonus money for me.
However because of covid cash flow issues, I would have had to fire half of my employees without the loan and the payback. That would have sucked for all of us.
Frankly, as I see it, the PPP program was better than the alternatives as my employees didn't wind up on unemploymet.
In one way the PPP is a bad idea as it doesn't let the market correct itself as well as it might - perhaps my company is too fragile. However, we then to not like to see people starving and losing their homes. Clutters up the sidewalks.
That’s awesome to hear and is absolutely a good thing!
Sadly we’ve also heard a lot of stories of complete misuse and outright fraudulent use of PPP loans. I’m paying for those unless the government gets that money back (after spending hundreds of thousands in legal fees). Whereas as far as I know student loans can’t be misused, at least not to the extent that many PPP loans were.
Heaven forbid a country invest in the education of its people. What a terrible no good idea, we should definitely be putting that money into pumping business or other interests.
If you want to invest in education then negotiate deals with universities as a government instead of handing blank checks to institutions that are charging $60K/year for tuition that’s somehow offered for 1/10th the price at similar institutions. This is pouring one bucket of water on a house fire but that bucket of water was someone’s only drinking water. It doesn’t solve the problem at all but now you’ve also pissed off a bunch of other people.
You must have assumed I was against it - I am not sure why.
I am just pointing out that there is no forgiveness, the education expenses incurred by college graduates is now being paid by blue collar workers, and its the most regressive tax we have ever had. That doesn't mean I am against it.
I just want folks to know that the person paying your college off is a guy who wishes he could have gone to college.
Complete nonsense, there's no tax increase for anyone to fund this work. We're buying like 10 less missile systems from Raytheon on a tab of defense spending 100k items long to fund stuff like this. It's a complete nonissue and you're just trying to make some bizarre emotional appeal.
We collectively invest in a large number of things that may not directly benefit us. My tax dollars fund programs that primarily benefit people that need the money due to choices I personally never would have made.
But that’s the point of a social system.
The moment that collective investment is about education or healthcare, people seem to apply an entirely different ruleset.
That isn't what this is though is it? This is people voluntarily taking loans to fund their education and now getting that paid off with other peoples money. With that logic, when are they paying my mortgage or credit card bills off which are also voluntary debt?
I an all for investing in education. This is not that.
If we want to argue about tax dollars being stolen then the massive bank bailouts and decade of QE by the fed are massively, _massively_ more of a problem and cost. Stop bailing out bad business decisions with my money and then we can talk about not spending it on stuff like paying off education loans.
"need" would be the key word here, do college graduates need the money? If a program is regressive, it means it's transferring money from people who need the money to people who either don't need the money or need it less. That doesn't exactly benefit people who need the money either.
We should invest in education where we need it. This is STEM majors and those without degrees subsidizing liberal arts majors that got worthless degrees.
People need to invest in themselves instead of begging for freebies. There's no reason why I should be paying for someone's pointless and useless education.
I guess I will do the napkin math:
39% of Americans graduated college [2]
Income of mid-career is 111,000 (college) vs 43,000 (HS) [2]
Lifetime increase in earnings is estimated 800,000, paying taxes the whole time.
So I think the commenter calling this a one time tax deduction is closer to reality than a "regressive tax". Probably less regressive than the 401Ks many college grads have vs HS.
That’s not the assertion they made. They’re average person paying tax didn’t graduate college, which is different from saying that most of the tax revenue is collected from non-college graduates.
>
This is, in essence, transferring the debt from people who graduated college to people who - on average - did not go to college.
That would only be true if everyone paid the same amount of taxes. We don't. College graduates pay significantly more taxes than non-college graduates.
This is largely a wealth transfer from the haves-college graduates to the have-nots college graduates. I'm not sure how you've missed the mark so wildly.
This FiveThirtyEight article [0] from 2016 explains your point about debt and graduation a bit more, and gives a nice summary of the typical degrees sought by college students in the US.
How is it similar? Businesses that employ people and generate tax revenue vs someone with a gender studies degree that will never add value to anything or anyone but the institution that charged them $150k for the degree.
Are you comparing loans given to businesses to stay afloat during a government mandated shutdown of an unprecedented scale where those businesses were forbidden by the government to do business, to the free will of students taking a loan understanding very well the consequences of their decision?
Much of the PPP loans taken were fraudulent, wasteful, unnecessary and inflationary. Businesses who had no need for them took them and had their best quarters and year. The market sloshed around and shot up with all this 'free' money.
We're willing to spend all this money unnecessarily on businesses but when it comes to supporting students all of a sudden - its too much and we have to draw the line!
I'd much rather see individuals paid directly than go through businesses and hope they are benevolent enough to use it on their employees.
It's truly something when I come to this website and folks are arguing against the government providing assistance to folks burdened by inescapable debt where making payments for decades and paying taxes can land you with even more debt than you started with because of the interest rates. What's supposed to happen? We just throw our hands up and say that the system is irreparably broken and there's nothing to be done?
And if this is a tax hike, then where has the 5-15% APR on many of those loans been going this whole time?
This is transferring debt people willingly took on to get a college degree, to people who did not go to college.
Look, I am not trying to be rude and I am trying to be gentle when I ask this: Where do you think the 'assistance' the government is going to provide comes from?
This transfers the debt to the top income earners who pay federal income tax into the general fund. The bottom 60% of Americans, 100 million households, pay no federal income tax.
> Look, I am not trying to be rude and I am trying to be gentle when I ask this: Where do you think the 'assistance' the government is going to provide comes from?
The wealthy and high earners? I pay substantial federal income tax, and I’m not too bent out of shape about this. I’m more concerned about waste going forward, not financial relief for my fellow citizen. The need for this debt would’ve never existed if state and federal funding for higher education had not slowly been withdrawn leaving students primarily to shoulder the cost burden (although I’m mindful of unchecked college spending and the need for cost controls due to the inelastic demand).
Employers don’t require a mortgage or a credit card for you to get a job that pays wages above the poverty line. They do require a degree with no economic exposure to that requirement.
> Lets at least be honest: "I like this but it means janitors / construction workers / hard working immigrants pay for the college of people who didnt."
Only if they have a federal income tax burden. That’s honesty, not the moral hazard you’re attempting to invoke. And it wouldn’t have been any different if that had paid slightly higher taxes previously to contribute to higher ed costs without the loans being originated.
I myself did not attend college, and yet, I will pay towards this forgiveness through my federal income taxes. I like (efficiently purposed) taxes, with them I buy civilization.
Money went from the government's big pool of money to a thing the government decided was a good idea. That's literally how all government spending works. We can collectively decide through our system of democracy that education is a good thing and that the single largest source of unsecured debt is probably worth addressing and not have the argument of "but it doesn't affect that group of people." If you want to get incensed about uneven distribution of wealth, get angry that the tax rate for the highest earners is the lowest it's ever been (and no, debt forgiveness doesn't benefit them).
It's also naive to think that relieving debt from the middle class won't benefit the economy in some way. America's middle class goes to college. It's hard to argue that consumers having more money to spend won't drive economic growth.
Those kinds of debt can be escaped. Sell your home and buy a new one. Declare bankruptcy.
Student loan debt is taken on by literal children with no credit with the promise of a good job and cannot be escaped under really any circumstances. Saying "well you just shouldn't have gone to college" is blaming kids for decisions their parents ultimately made.
In Europe, the middle and upper middle class taxes itself to pay for “free” education.
In the US, families making up to $250,000–which would be in the top tax bracket in nearly every European country—conceive of themselves as proletariat that deserve both rock-bottom taxes that haven’t been increased since Reagan, as well as free stuff from the government, at the same time.
We all know that the number of AR-15 your credit card company lets you buy is the only proper way to count ‘freedom points’ (TM).
Crippling debt from education so that you have some shot at a career, or a health insurance system that has successfully abolished any market mechanisms and effectively ties you to your employers certainly don’t contribute to any ‘mass control’ whatsoever.
When will americans complain about trillions of tax money given to defense industry and fraud banks, instead of little to education and poor? I guess never.
