My immediate reaction is that it would enable price inflation by removing the prohibitive upfront expense. It's like getting a no-money-down mortgage. They become popular in a bubble. Come to think of it, this might be pretty good evidence of a higher-education bubble.
This is effectively what's already happened with student loans, so it's not like it could get any worse. The upside of the Oregon plan is that when it's based on a fixed percentage of income, rather than an arbitrary predefined amount that does not consider your income, it's never financially overbearing.
Perhaps, but my guess is that future students will continue to pay increased rates. And, if costs are already too high, is this a good way to address that? You can legally default on loans. You would be evading taxes if you didn't pay these. IMO it seems like a fix for a symptom, that allows the problem to continue.
You can "default" on student loans, but in the United States government will garnish your wages and tax refunds at a much higher rate than Oregon's proposed 3%, not to mention all the harassment and extra fees that go along with debt collection. I agree, really. I think education should be completely free. But from an economic oppression standpoint Oregon's plan is a massive improvement. You're not permanently stuck with a debt that may be impossible to pay off, the payments are totally determined by your circumstances. However, I would be happier if it was progressive rather than flat.You can legally default on loans. You would be evading taxes if you didn't pay these.
IMO it seems like a fix for a symptom, that allows the problem to continue.