Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I had some student loan debt in default and an ongoing garnishment that left me living at 99 percent of poverty level.
Student loan borrowers not in default can skate payment-free with income up to 150% of poverty level, through income-driven repayment programs - and have the remaining balance forgiven after 20 or 25 years.
Enforced payment proves that low income defaulters can afford to make these payments, so why should borrowers not in default get to make no payment at higher income levels?
Or it can be viewed from the other direction: If borrowers below 150% of poverty level are considered too poor to afford monthly payments, how can enforced payment be affordable to lower-income defaulters?
I had some student loan debt in default and an ongoing garnishment that left me living at 99 percent of poverty level.
Student loan borrowers not in default can skate payment-free with income up to 150% of poverty level, through income-driven repayment programs - and have the remaining balance forgiven after 20 or 25 years.
Enforced payment proves that low income defaulters can afford to make these payments, so why should borrowers not in default get to make no payment at higher income levels?
Or it can be viewed from the other direction: If borrowers below 150% of poverty level are considered too poor to afford monthly payments, how can enforced payment be affordable to lower-income defaulters?
Since when are laws consistent and uniform? That's like asking why the minimum age of marriage in some states is 16 and in others is 18, even though people in those states do not "grow up faster".
Simply put, different lawmakers have different ideas, and they don't always "line up" everything.
I assume after you finished school (and if I recall that was MANY years ago) you agreed to pay an amount each month. That amount was based on your loans and the agreement with your lenders. But you didn't pay and now you want to change the agreement you made so it resembles some other payment structure currently being offered. It doesn't matter what your income is now and what, if you were just finishing school now, you would be required to pay. Your loans were made and were meant to be repaid based on your original agreement.
I assume after you finished school (and if I recall that was MANY years ago) you agreed to pay an amount each month. That amount was based on your loans and the agreement with your lenders. But you didn't pay and now you want to change the agreement you made so it resembles some other payment structure currently being offered. It doesn't matter what your income is now and what, if you were just finishing school now, you would be required to pay. Your loans were made and were meant to be repaid based on your original agreement.
I signed a contract in which I agreed to make "reasonable and affordable" payments. I defaulted before income-driven repayment existed, so I was not afforded an opportunity to make payments reasonable for my income. (More precisely, we disagreed on what was affordable to me, but arbitration was not available to me and a top-down decision was imposed.)
I've recently consolidated my student loans under income-driven repayment, which got them out of default, which puts more money in my pocket. If it were up to them, they'd keep extracting money from my paycheck forever.
If a payment is not affordable to a borrower below 150% of poverty level, being in default does not magically make it affordable, and therefore it follows that extracting money from the low income borrower's paycheck is punitive.
Or it can be looked at from the other direction: If money can be extracted from borrowers at poverty level, why should borrowers at 150% of poverty level get a bailout?
I signed a contract in which I agreed to make "reasonable and affordable" payments. I defaulted before income-driven repayment existed, so I was not afforded an opportunity to make payments reasonable for my income. (More precisely, we disagreed on what was affordable to me, but arbitration was not available to me and a top-down decision was imposed.)
I've recently consolidated my student loans under income-driven repayment, which got them out of default, which puts more money in my pocket. If it were up to them, they'd keep extracting money from my paycheck forever.
If a payment is not affordable to a borrower below 150% of poverty level, being in default does not magically make it affordable, and therefore it follows that extracting money from the low income borrower's paycheck is punitive.
Or it can be looked at from the other direction: If money can be extracted from borrowers at poverty level, why should borrowers at 150% of poverty level get a bailout?
There's no bailout. If you default, you are in breach of contract and as a result, you lose all protection provided by such contract/program. Those in income-based repayment are within their contract terms.
While you'll possibly have your SS payments penalized in a few years due to your default status, my generation might not see SS at all, with a certainty that our benefits will be significantly reduced.
Heck, this whole IBR idea could go the way of the Dodo in a few years, change is constant.
I won't even get into the increased cost of college for the IBR generation vs your generation, or the current SL interest rates but again things change, and not always for the best.
There's no bailout. If you default, you are in breach of contract and as a result, you lose all protection provided by such contract/program. Those in income-based repayment are within their contract terms.
Borrowers who never repay one dime, and have their loan balance forgiven after 20 or 25 years don't get a bailout?
OP: I did at one point have student loan debt and there were some months when I sent $5.00 because that is all I had left after necessities and it was my last $5.00 but I sent it anyway. Sending a small amount is better than sending nothing at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
