So people in the US have asserted that（声称） fiving student loa is one way to stilate the ey and give assistao those in need. One gover proposition （提议）is to elinate（免除） $10,000 of debt for ‘eically distressed’students. So in US gress have gone so far as to suggest fiving up to $50,000 i per student borrower, but does fiving stude necessarily correlate to helping the eically disadvantaged?
The answer is no. This policy is just giving ney away to uies and the st affluent（富裕的） students in attendance. Federal Reserve data reveals that the highest-ine 40 pert of households oroxitely 60 pert of outstanding stude, while the lowest 40 pert owe just under 20pert. This could be due to a bination of factors students frohigh-ine households are re likely to go to expensive colleges, less likely to receive financial aid, and re likely to have high ines post-graduation. Plus, the jority of stude is held by graduate degree （研究生学位）earners, who earn approxitely 25 pert re than their undergraduate terparts. Clearly, giving free reign（支配） to banks tive stude is a step in the wrong dire.
Other proposals for broader, long-terstudent loan plans have so fual proble. One idea is to cel stude only for undergraduate degrees and for students kihan $125,000.
This attets to address the fact that gress’previously ntioudent loan fiveness plan largely helps out the wealthy, but is an adverse iive（刺激） for uies to keep raising tuition and for students to choose to jor in low-earning degree progra Colleges have no reason to ke their progra re affordable if they believe students will just take out re debt. And, students will feel re fortable king the irresponsible decision to go tens of thousands of dollars io jor in iractical or idealistic subjects if they know their loans will be fiven.
This is especially ing given the pandec (大流行病) has rendered a college education practically worthless. Students are paying tens