• reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I still don’t understand why they didn’t just zero the interest on all the loans made between a certain time period. Seems like that would have been simpler and less controversial.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      4 months ago

      I don’t believe any specific policy change which benefitted a broad swath of the public could have survived the current courts.

      • reddig33@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        How so? Doesn’t the government (not banks) own the loans that they are currently forgiving? What would be different than owning them and zeroing out the remaining interest? The feds would get a small payoff instead of losing 100% of the remainder through forgiveness.

        • 4am@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Banks finance all the FAFSA loans. Originators lend the money out and then they sell the money to servicers who are like collection agencies. Some originators are also servicers (Sallie Mae was like this).

          The government is a guarantor of the loans. That means that if the borrower defaults the government pays the servicer. I do believe that also means that if the government forgives the loan then they pay out to the servicer.

          • evatronic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            You got it.

            It’s a sweet deal for the servicers… the loans are basically zero risk and the servicer gets to keep a lion’s share of the interest while only paying for the costs associated with servicing (customer service, mailing statements, pausing repayment for various reasons, etc.)

            That said, those loans shouldn’t be confused with private student loans, in which the government is. It involved (mostly).

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      That requires Congressional action, and financial allocations, which haven’t been forthcoming.

      While I like what Biden is doing, he’s really just finding the loopholes in previous legislation. It has to be inconsistent

    • UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      I agree. In my opinion, this solution has always made the most sense. I’m sure some conservative judge will be/has been bribed enough to block it, but the zero interest rate along with eliminating accumulated interest is the best solution.

      • medgremlin@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s basically what the SAVE plan did. If you enrolled in it and made qualifying income-based payments that didn’t cover the interest on the loan, the interest wouldn’t capitalize and it would still count as a qualifying payment for PSLF. It wasn’t loan forgiveness, but it ensured that payers wouldn’t have their loan balances skyrocket while making income-driven repayments.

        • UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yep. Except that was limited to anyone below 225% the poverty line (roughly 30k a year). I think should be expanded to <75k. Something closer to the actual poverty line depending on where you live.

          • medgremlin@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            No, that was applicable to anyone enrolled in the SAVE plan. If you made more money than that, you would have a small payment which was limited to 5% of your discretionary income (a number that excludes a portion of your income as non-discretionary for living expenses, etc). So if you made 75k/year, your payment would be 5% of the amount not designated as necessary living expenses. I’m not positive on the exact numbers, but I think they exclude about 60k before they start calculating your payment amount.

            • UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              Interesting. Good to know. I wasn’t aware that it was open to all. I thought it was low-income based student loan reform. Thanks for the info. =~)

  • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    4 months ago

    Crazy idea: the day before the election, Biden (or his replacement) makes a nationwide address telling anyone with student loans to just stop paying them, and that if the Dems win, their administration promises to spend the next four years handling the fallout.

    If the Dems lose, we as a country will have bigger issues to worry about. If the Dems win, we might finally have a campaign promise that we can hold them accountable for.

    • Ghyste@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      A few dollars out of your current level of taxes to ensure future generations can afford to live is too much, but all the other bullshit is cool…

      That’s a fucked up view.

      • Sc00ter@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Not the guy you replied to, but “a few dollars” is bullshit. My wife and I owe almost $100k MORE than when we graduated due to interest. And we’ve made every payment since we graduated in 2010. Our monthly payments don’t even cover interest

        Pre edit: after I wrote that, I wondered if you realized the person you responded to meant they weren’t paying their own loans

    • figaro@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      While I agree with your sentiment, the issue is that there are actual consequences to not paying them. Ultimately up to 15% of your wages could be garnished, and your credit score will be tanked. Good luck getting a car or home loan after that.