Many participants felt they would appreciate paying less if they were lower earners but would be upset if they had to pay more than others as high earners.
Some participants thought that the system was inherently unfair and that it penalized higher earners, while others believed that higher earners would have more financial cushion and thus be less burdened by the amount of their repayments. Notably, some participants in each group saw this type of guarantee as a way for higher earners to give back to those less fortunate. Some participants in each group strongly believed that each borrower should be required to pay back what he or she owes; some of these participants thought that allowances should be made for people with low incomes after graduation; others did not.
Some participants who had originally expressed interest in loan guarantees reversed their opinions after learning how much it would be possible to repay
Many participants felt that capping the possible amount of repayment at 2.5 times the original amount borrowed was unreasonably high. Many of these participants mistakenly believed that they would be required to repay the amount that they borrowed by this extreme amount, rather than understanding that only the highest earners would repay their borrowed amounts to such an extent. However, some participants in each group were grateful for the cap and thought that the possibility of repaying 2.5 times more than they had originally borrowed was worth the guarantee of affordable loan payments.Seguir leyendo