I mean, I think other posters hit the nail on it's head - you find me one proposal that was universally fair to everyone in the population, idk what I'll do.
But this whole thing about 50k to everyone in their 20-50's & erasing debt being an equivalent has to stop.
Under the scope of inflation (which will affect everyone) - which one do you think will have more inflationary pressure?
- Lets say a third of the population is in that age range, that would be a ~$5T cash injection right into the consumer's pockets - OVERNIGHT. 25% of the 2019 annual GDP right into the consumer's pockets . NO inflationary pressures right there. Effectively growing people LIQUID net worth what? 1000%? Nothing will go wrong if people spend that money on consumer products - supply chains are ready for an overnight demand increase of 1000% . If people pay down mortgages - yeah the mortgage industry (which is private industry vs. student loans which is obviously gov.) is totally ready for a $5T drawdown on loans, when their revenues are solely based on interest - nothing can go wrong.
- A policy that increases people's net worth( decreases liabilities) but is not a cash infusion so liquid net worth stays roughly the same, income + cash saved on student loan payments. The velocity of the money (student loan payments) that could potentially be used to put back in the economy is sustainably lower - as it spreads out over years or decades.
Both of these scenarios are obviously the same