This week we paid for The Girl’s last semester at college. Barring catastrophe, I have filled out my last FAFSA. I won’t miss those at all. We managed to get her through college without her (or us) taking out loans, so when she graduates she’ll be in the best position to launch that we could give her.

That’s good in itself, of course, but I also learned recently that it’s good for another reason. A few months ago we paid off The Boy’s student loans. The loans had been in his name, as traditional student loans are. When we paid them off, his credit score took a hit!

I am not making that up.

As a young man starting out his adult career—weighing options for places to live, thinking about medical school(s), grappling seriously with adult choices around locations and relationships—taking a swift kick in the credit score has real impact. He doesn’t have enough spare capital lying around to, say, buy a house for cash. At 24, most people don’t. I certainly didn’t. A new place and/or a new tuition bill will require debt, which is more expensive when your credit score is lower. It’s a sort of poverty tax, except that the proceeds go to banks.

People who take out student loans get criticized for not paying them off, but then also get punished for paying them off. I don’t blame him for being frustrated.

This perverse outcome happened in a close-to-best-case scenario: He finished his degree, got a job in his field and got parental help paying off the loans. Most students would gladly trade scenarios, and yet …

I know it’s culturally double-edged, but it’s still true that minimizing student loan debt is a great argument for starting at a community college. Intro to Psychology doesn’t vary that much from one college to another; why go into debt to pay double or triple what you could have paid? My own kids proved stubbornly immune to that argument—they knew what they wanted, and they are their own people—but it’s still true.

At least The Girl has managed to get through without loans, so she’ll be spared the no-win choice he faced. She’ll have her own challenges, but not that particular one.

Of course, the right policy way to address scenarios like these is to recognize that they’re structural and therefore the correct response is structural. Giving public colleges and universities the funding they need to do their jobs without annual tuition increases would obviate much of the need for loans in the first place; add support for student basic needs, and the space for loans would get even smaller. Making loans moot would get around the double bind of either paying back or not paying back and would do so regardless of whether students have parents who can afford to help. On a broader level, working toward a more equitable economy—one in which young people just starting out could afford homes, say—would do a world of good. In the meantime, moving to interest-free loans would offer much more bang for the buck without violating any major cultural norms.

In the meantime, though, can we at least agree to stop punishing people who actually pay off their loans? What would we rather have people do?