Which Presidential Candidate Would Be Best for Broke Young People?

According to a poll published in January by USA Today and Rock the Vote, millennials can't stop thinking about money: Their top two issues are the overall economic situation and student debt. With a worldwide economic slump damaging young peoples' futures—maybe permanently—a student debt crisis that has led to some people literally fleeing the country, and a political structure that gives older people more power than the young, millennials have their reasons to be concerned about the future of not just the world, but their wallets.

But even if people are worried about the economy, that doesn't mean they are unified on specific issues. "I'm worried I don't or won't have enough money," could mean a lot of different things—it could mean you want tax cuts, or it could mean that you want expensive government programs to be paid by tax increases on the rich.

Say what you will about this election, it's given us plenty of options when it comes to economic plans. To put things in perspective, Vox created a tax calculator that allows users to punch in basic tax data and get a snapshot of what their general tax situation would be—including payroll and sales taxes—if each candidate were elected president, and fully implemented their policies. Here's what it would be like if you were a single person without kids making $50,000 a year:

Those sorts of numbers can alarm you, even if you're inclined to support tax-and-spend democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, whose plans would lead to increases on nearly everyone's taxes. But according to Lionel Page, a behavioral economist at Queensland University of Technology who focuses on income inequality, those numbers don't paint a complete picture of how your finances might change in a Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, or Sanders administration. "You may not be seeing that with some candidates you pay more, but you get more as well," Page told me.

With that in mind, I asked Heather Jarvis, a public interest lawyer and an advocate for people with crushing student debt, to weigh in. For each candidate, she laid out the pros and cons for debt-addled youngsters, as well as youngsters who are about to take on debt.

*VICE: I make a pretty average income, and according to Vox, I get a big tax cut if Trump gets elected. Plus, he's for leaving much of America's social safety net intact, unless you count Obamacare. Tax-wise, he's a tempting candidate, don't you think?*
Heather Jarvis: I think that's absolutely valid and worth considering. But I think it's also sort of—what happens with your taxes? Are the taxes you pay going to the Department of Defense, or are they going to the Department of Education? It makes a difference.

Well, in the case of those two departments, it looks like he plans to cut both a bit. What does that mean for college?
Trump has given not a lot of detail with regard to his thoughts on education. He has said the government shouldn't make money off of student loans, and the government should have other "profit centers." The fact that student loans are one of the few—in his estimation—"profit centers" is not how he wants to see it, which is in fact a position that Elizabeth Warren has taken. Elizabeth Warren being probably the clearest, biggest champion of student loan borrowers in Congress.

Sounds promising. Do you see any problems with his take on that stuff?
All we have is the idea that your government won't make a profit on student loans anymore, and also he's talked about there being a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse. And that's also, [he says,] happening within the Department of Education, so who knows how that would be addressed? But you really haven't heard him talk about anything that would address the cost of education going forward. So those specifics are absent, except we've got the whole Trump University thing.

OK, let's talk about Trump University. Are schools like that a hazard for young people's finances?
We certainly know that for-profit education institutions have lots of problems: People who attend those schools tend to have more and less affordable loans, more private loans, less success completing programs, and less success repaying student loans. So the claims against Trump University—that the university didn't deliver the benefits that it promised for the money that people spent—are the same criticisms that people have about the majority of the for-profit education sector in general. That's a big issue for people interested in higher education.

Let's talk about Hillary. She looks like she'll have the least effect on taxes, but has she made her other positions clear on youth and finances?
There's been more policy by Secretary Clinton than any other candidate. Her proposals with regards to student loans are the clearest and most detailed, so it's easier to analyze those. Although it still is hard to quantify because the way that it would actually pan out is going to depend in part on market conditions that are in the future.

What about her promise to allow Pell grants to be used for living expenses, not just tuition? That sounds like it could be great.
Well, except the Pell grant isn't super huge. While it is great—if it were a lot of money, it would be quite great—it's not really enough. That's the problem the Pell grant. It hasn't kept pace with the rising costs. But it's definitely an improvement over our current circumstances.

Refinancing is a part of her plan as well. Can you explain why something as seemingly small as a different interest rate can make a difference?
Providing a refinancing option is super important for people with private student loans who may now be paying at much higher interest rates, and have no access to the flexibility that comes with federal student loans.

She has other proposals that don't necessarily look like they speak to young college graduates. Full-day daycare for low-income families, and a pretty modest federal minimum wage hike to $12 an hour.
Everyone, including recent grades, needs access to affordable childcare and living wages. It's important to remember that lots of people have student loans without having college degrees. In fact, the people who struggle most with student loans are the ones who borrow but don't end up completing a program of education that makes it easier for them to get jobs.

Cruz wants to shut down a huge portion of the federal government. What will that do for young people with horrible debt?
In terms of federal student aid, we know that he is not a fan of the Department of Education.

No. That's one of the departments he would get rid of. Do we know whether he would initiate any programs to help out with debt?
We know, based on his record, that he has voted against legislation in the past—introduced by Senator Warren of Massachusetts—that would allow students to refinance their student loans. But he has also mentioned his own student loan debt in some of his speeches, so he has some awareness of student loans from a personal perspective. Mostly his comments focus on having student aid be in the control of the states and having less federal influence.

What about his flat tax and the elimination of the IRS? Do those benefit young people?
I would assume that it wouldn't include renewal of the student loan interest deduction that is presently available, but the student loan interest deduction is not especially generous anyway. It would be nice to hold onto it or improve it, but it doesn't have a tremendous impact on a lot of people because it just permits you to reduce the amount of your income that is taxed. It's not like it reduces the amount of tax you have to pay. It reduces the amount of income on which you have to pay taxes, so it's helpful, but it's strictly limited to $2,500, and it phases out at certain income levels, and it already expires in two years. So it's not the best relief for student loan borrowers anyway.

I couldn't find much online about Kasich and issues that affect young people's finances. Could you?
Yeah, Kasich also has not provided anything real specific. On the other hand, we do have his record in Ohio. He did increase the funding for higher education. It was not by a lot; it was a two percent increase, and he also did put a cap on how much universities can raise their tuition—also two percent. And he instituted a plan to freeze tuition in 2017. So his record in Ohio is of some significance. He also, in a budget proposal he had, was suggesting a certain kind of a student debt relief fund.

Great, but does that necessarily mean anything for his presidency?
I'm not sure that I've seen anything that helps me understand the link between the two. I guess you could draw what you want to from the circumstances.

Should young people be worried that Sanders could jeopardize Obamacare in his pursuit of "social security for all"?
I think one potential criticism of Senator Sanders position as far as that goes is that there are those who have improved their circumstances with Obamacare. But certainly his message has been that he's going to make things more affordable for young people.

Do Sanders's policies student loans make it worth the added tax hit most people will have to deal with?
When it comes to funding for higher education, he thinks that not only should we not have student debt, but we shouldn't have to pay tuition. It should be tuition free. That doesn't help if you've already paid your tuition, or already borrowed for your tuition. But if his proposal became reality, future generations would have very different circumstances. Whether you'd be subject to higher taxes in order to pay for those additional programs and reduction of tuition is going to depend primarily on whether you make money or not. Sanders's tax proposals are very progressive and put the burden on those who can afford it.

Well, it looks like the tax hikes hit me really hard, and I'm pretty average.
But, of course, you have to weigh that against the reduction of other expenses you would have. If you're paying less for education and health care, the fact that you're paying more in tax isn't necessarily a net increase in what you're paying.

Follow Mike on Twitter.

Note: A math error in the Vox graphic has been corrected to reflect $50,000 income instead of $5,000 income.