Good Topic.....but here is an off point that no one has even bother to try to answer.
"How do you justify the simple fact that the guy down the street should be paying your childs student loans/debt."
I already pay a boatload of taxes, and now you want me to pay for someone else's childs education.
So where does this all end..??
It's crazy and it's out of control.
Love,
Liz
Hi Liz. I would say you're making an argument that's a
Straw Man logical fallacy, followed up by a
Slippery Slope logical fallacy (highlighted).
Straw Man: (literally in this case) simplifying an argument and then addressing that simplification. The issue is people have taken out loans in the expectation they will pay them off in the end, and ultimately be in a better situation financially than if they had never gone to university. The fact it is not working out that way for so many indicates the system needs to be fixed, including the relief of historic debt, because fees are too high. It does not indicate they should never have gone to university in the first place.
Here's another example. There were major fires in Australia a few years ago and federal taxes increased by 1% for a year or two to pay for the huge repair bill, including the rebuilding of many thousands of homes lost. So every taxpayer in the country paid, regardless of personal impact. Protesters against this increase argued, "Why should I pay extra taxes, and my own home insurance, to cover the asses of people who didn't pay for home insurance?" Yes, the fires didn't impact them, so they didn't care.
Slippery Slope: Stating that one thing may lead to another, based on no evidence. It could just as easily not happen, in which case, what's the argument?