I think the better use of the 550 million would be to lobby for eliminating the danger of medical debt. The medical sector will just take the money and keep going on as before. Nothing has been really improved.
Same for student loan forgiveness. We should ask why tuition has to go up constantly instead of pumping more money into a broken system.
I think Mark Cuban has it right with his Cost+ site. It actually improves the system.
There was a post (on Reddit I think, so take it with a grain of salt) - someone mentioned they paid $300 to a student loan, out of which only $68 went to the principal, everything else went to the interest. Kinda looks high, but I haven't had a student loan, so not sure. I have seen many similar posts though.
So yeah, it would be a better use of the money to work on the root cause of the problems. It is also a bad idea to depend on the largesse of the ultra wealthy, for issues like this - just how many people can they help, and for how long? If the article is correct (It's one thing to say you've donated a quarter of your wealth, but a whole other thing to say you've donated 0.27% of your money.) then it even looks like a PR stunt than a genuine desire to help
I think the better use of the 550 million would be to lobby for eliminating the danger of medical debt. The medical sector will just take the money and keep going on as before. Nothing has been really improved.
Same for student loan forgiveness. We should ask why tuition has to go up constantly instead of pumping more money into a broken system.
I think Mark Cuban has it right with his Cost+ site. It actually improves the system.
There was a post (on Reddit I think, so take it with a grain of salt) - someone mentioned they paid $300 to a student loan, out of which only $68 went to the principal, everything else went to the interest. Kinda looks high, but I haven't had a student loan, so not sure. I have seen many similar posts though.
So yeah, it would be a better use of the money to work on the root cause of the problems. It is also a bad idea to depend on the largesse of the ultra wealthy, for issues like this - just how many people can they help, and for how long? If the article is correct (It's one thing to say you've donated a quarter of your wealth, but a whole other thing to say you've donated 0.27% of your money.) then it even looks like a PR stunt than a genuine desire to help