> I do not believe [housing and transportation] should be paid for with Educational Loans.

The problem with your suggestion to limit student loans to tuition is that the cost of college isn't limited to tuition. If you can't afford the total cost of college, then you can't afford to go. But getting a tuition loan would encourage people who can't afford the secondary costs to try anyway. If the loans were to be limited to tuition only, then you are increasing the risk of loan default. So if you're actually worried about the taxes associated with student loan defaults, you might want to think twice about your position.

The loan agencies obviously disagree with your personal opinion, because they don't limit student loans to tuition payments, and they have in fact considered your suggestion. Why do you think you know better than they do?

> this idea that ever[y] person needs a degree is moronic to me

Good for you, I guess? Who said that here? The reason everyone wants a degree is because it comes with a 2x higher average salary in the US (the fed published this just the other day.) It’s 3x for advanced degrees. You go convince everyone to be happy with less than what you have.

> Good, if everyone was jumping off a bridge would you do that as well

Maybe yes if everyone who jumped off a bridge landed safely 3 feet below in a pile of money and a better life for everyone. Your tired and hyperbolic aphorism doesn’t work as an analogy at all. The countries subsidizing education are not only failing to die from it, those countries are better off than we are by many measures, including global education ranking and strong economies. Yes, thank you, I’d love some of that.

> If they were private loans not back by the government I would agree and no longer care.

The government is making money on student loans. What, exactly, is the actual issue you have that is real today and not imagined or hypothetical fear?

> I pay enough taxes thank you.

I see this is dogmatic debate over tax ‘principles’ and not serious thought about the actual value of the money we spend, or how to improve the situation.

What you’re suggesting is status quo- that all taxpayers should stay accountable to student loan defaults, whether they go to college or not. What I suggested is that the people who get degrees (and have higher salaries as a result) would be the people paying for students. Are you absolutely certain your plan is actually better for taxpayers? I'm a tax payer, and I personally think I'd probably be better off economically if I could have paid a tiny bit higher income tax instead of taking student loans.

The total education expenditure in what I suggested doesn’t change. You pay a smaller amount every year after you earn your degree, instead of a large amount before you even have an income. (It's not entirely unlike a student loan if you think about it.) Were it to actually happen, the government could push to standardize education costs, reduce the uncontrolled tuition hiking and reduce college administrations.

Absolute fear of taxes, sadly, is preventing us from being able to imagine scenarios that are better than what we have. We’re limiting ourselves by assuming that we can’t share.