The scheme will cause a massive inflow of loans into the new system and cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.
Income-based repayment is affordable by definition. Currently, borrowers pay about 10 percent of their discretionary income over about 20 years, and whatever’s left—including all accrued interest—is forgiven.
Such a plan should be reserved only for people who have no other way to pay a larger amount because it keeps them from defaulting and therefore maximizes loan payments in an affordable way.
- Payments are generally cut in half to 5 percent of income from 10 percent.
- The number of payments is generally cut in half to 10 years from 20 years.
- Income under which payments are $0 is raised to 225 percent of the poverty line from 150 percent.
- All payments, including “payments” of $0, trigger cancellation of that month’s interest.
Which borrowers will choose that option? Almost everyone.
The department’s solution is to take graduate debt as the norm—which is the opposite of reality—and make undergraduate debt operate similarly.
As a result, the department estimates that the point at which this scheme breaks even—the point at which income is too high for even a 5 percent payment to benefit a borrower—is $75,500 for undergraduate borrowers.
That means only about the top 2 percent of young earners are likely to stick with their current loan-repayment plan. Everybody else will take the payment cuts. The department could easily—but appears not to—admit that this will happen.
Who’s paying the bill for 98 percent of tens of millions of borrowers to get this windfall? America’s 100 million taxpayers, of course, yet again.
With this latest forgiveness scheme, the Education Department transfers hundreds of billions of dollars to college-educated people at the expense of taxpaying blue-collar workers and those who already met their responsibilities and paid their debts.
Think of it this way: For every $100 billion of debt forgiveness or payment reductions, that’s another $1,000 out of each taxpayer’s pocket.
That’s basic economics: Consumers can afford to pay more, so producers charge more for their unique products. For example, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, each dollar of federal loan subsidy has led to 60 cents of tuition increases.
It should not seem counterintuitive to observe that if the government stops throwing trillions of dollars into higher education tuition, tuition will stop rising at unsustainable rates.
The Department of Education can’t make college free, but it’s making strides in bringing socialism to higher education. Congress shouldn’t stand for that.