The end of student loan forgiveness?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Billions in forgiven loans?! LMAO you can't believe that will happen? Give me a break. Their aren't enough PSLF positions to make that possible. Hyperbole isn't necessary.

The GAO estimates there will be $108 billion dollars forgiven for loans made from 1995 to 2017. I doubt PSLF will make up less than 1 percent of the forgiven volume, so no it isn't hyperbole. The costs of the program are out of control and it will be capped within the next 5 years. As was mentioned earlier they could recoup some of the money by simply changing the tax treatment of the forgiven loans under PSLF.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Ever heard of this guy? He should update us!






Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

This is unreal. Thanks for the link.

Nope, industrial action (particularly wildcat strikes) by most healthcare workers without a union almost always result in a patient abandonment charge (and in the civil service, it is one of the few matters that guarantees termination due to Reagan and the Born on the Fourth of July law in the VA). Unionize before striking, and good luck convincing professionals to unionize.

I'll be curious on the nonprofit business structure (to the point where I think it may be worth setting up a couple of JD/LLM's in student loan tax avoidance). Bonafide non-profits are not easy to set up if you are doing more than a single person, and physicians and lawyers are in a special auditing class by IRS for past abuses of nonprofit tax administration. From having to convert a nonprofit to profit, the $ lost in the conversion more than offsets the student loan benefit if there's reasonable assets in the nonprofit corporation ($500k+ at the one-time tax).

My guess based on past federal government tax work is that you'll pay in the end anyway and get a marginal benefit, but not too good to be true. Same with how Bush screwed soldiers out of enlistment bonuses, you will get a benefit, but not as great as you thought.

I get what you're saying, but you're abiding by laws here. If people get pushed too far within a broken system, they'll sit on their desks. Laws are meant to control behavior.....but if they create oppression or a broken system, then populations will change their behavior and conformity to what was once the status quo. People do snap.

Aren't some professions not allowed to unionize by "law" by the way?
^Just curious.
 
The GAO estimates there will be $108 billion dollars forgiven for loans made from 1995 to 2017. I doubt PSLF will make up less than 1 percent of the forgiven volume, so no it isn't hyperbole. The costs of the program are out of control and it will be capped within the next 5 years. As was mentioned earlier they could recoup some of the money by simply changing the tax treatment of the forgiven loans under PSLF.

My response was directed at the claim that billions of dollars will be forgiven for physician loans. If you have a source for those estimates specifically I would love to see them. I really do not believe that there is nearly the amount of fraud and abuse that people seem to think there is, but if there is I would love to see the actually data on it. How many physical groups are set up as charity in order to qualify for PSFL, as claimed above? I would be shocked if there were any cases, let alone some kind of rampant outbreak.

I honestly did not know the estimate was that high for all loans though. Very interesting. If that is just the amount being forgiven, I would what the total is for all student loans? It must be trillions I would think?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I doubt he is the only one:

I will ultimately end up paying what I consider a fair market value for a PharmD , somewhere around $100-150k . The opportunities I had to invest and start small business during school (offshore) , taught me that finances particularly with regard to US govt, are not always what they seem. For example, while US Gov will ultimately pay $700k for my PharmD . I will pay around 150k. The opportunity to get student loans to sit around and not attend class allowed me to invest in my retirement already through small business, which, starting a steady compounding interest stream at age 25, was financially worth the trade-off of acquiring the student debt, and was a no brainer decision since it dovetails nicely with pre-existing plans to retire abroad.

Just a small piece of a bigger picture.

The on paper debt is a farce, which, I would hope anyone who has participated in higher ed scam would realize




Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app
 
As of last year january, total student loans owed was 1.2 trillion. I imagine its higher now

And to add on..I know people who take several degrees (eg. From pharmd to md, from masters to pharmd to dentistry) who accrue tons of debt and are reckless about their career choices but they do not care because they are counting on loan forgiveness..

I just saw pharmD to PhD and it wasn't a combined, paid for program................
 
Omfg. THIS.

Every. Single. Healthfield. Students in every single one do this garbage

Not just every health field - every MAJOR.

People openly took out extra loans for spring break, designer clothes, weed, etc. when I was in school 25 years ago, and then wondered why that degree in women's studies, comparative religion, art history, etc. wasn't a shoo-in to the corner office.

:whistle: :beat: :corny:
 
Not just every health field - every MAJOR.

People openly took out extra loans for spring break, designer clothes, weed, etc. when I was in school 25 years ago, and then wondered why that degree in women's studies, comparative religion, art history, etc. wasn't a shoo-in to the corner office.

:whistle: :beat: :corny:

Doing that in undergrad is a whole new level of stupid. Almost as dumb as getting those terminal degrees
 
  • Second, after PSLF’s creation in 2007, the program has literally been written into Direct federal student loan promissory notes (the contracts setting forth the terms and conditions of Direct program loans). I’ve spoken to several legal experts who believe it might be a contractual violation for the federal government to eliminate a program that is expressly made available by contract. They could eliminate the clause from future contracts, which would affect future borrowers, but not for current borrowers.
@Pharmacy Kid
 
**sorry, this is long, but it's my most honest take on the program yet. grab some popcorn**



These last two pages make me smile, finally some GOOD discussion on PSLF.

Tax code has always created winners and losers. Bitching about having gov't pay off someone else's remaining student loan balance is the same as bitching about someone buying solar panels and getting 30% of the price back from the gov't, or bitching that the mortgage interest of a home buyer distorts the market and is unfair to renters, or having kids and getting another $4k exemption on taxes is unfair to childless or infertile people.

All valid points and arguments, but if you want to be consistent, you have to admit that railing against PSLF but staying silent on those other deductions is hypocritical. You want to be a winner, and under current law (not necessarily future law), you are not. Try again next time.

I'm like the poster child of PSLF excess, I found out about the program and IBR my P-2 year and cranked up my borrowing to maximize the benefits. I penciled out the risks (tax and legislative changes) and the benefits (>$250k potentially forgiven) and figured it was worth a go. I pocketed my intern earnings and used that to travel extensively during school (Europe, Asia, many trips back to California, etc...) and eat and explore the east coast during my four years there. I didn't live in the most expensive high rise tower, but I didn't live in "student poverty housing" either. I ate out 3x/week+ and pretty much went out every weekend.

Everything from that point on involved minimizing AGI, which is no different from everyone's tax strategy today, but there was an additional benefit for every dollar I could deduct.

I graduated and did residency, and because of the lagging nature of IBR/later REPAYE, I enjoyed a sub-$500 payment for at least a year. In fact, the first year was somewhere in the range of $300 because I launched a side business the previous December and incurred a $5000+ net loss in start up costs. As previously discussed on here, I made sure to turn a technical profit (underreporting any losses) in 3 out of the 5 ensuing tax years. Properly placed, those two unprofitable years can generate a lot of deductible business losses. Remember, each dollar of reduced AGI pays dividends with the IBR/REPAYE payment.

A few things have thrown off my calculations and plan:

1) Income A - my W-2'd income is much higher than I originally thought it would be at graduation time. This proportionally contributes to a higher IBR/REPAYE payment and therefore reduces the eventual PSLF benefit. I cannot easily reduce this income for federal tax purposes.

2) Income B - my Schedule C "hobby/business" somehow turned into a much bigger thing and in year 5 of existence started generating a lot of income. I had flexibility in hiding this, so I opened an Individual 401k (with Vanguard, if you were wondering) and shoveled this money in there to keep my AGI from blowing up. I had to incorporate ASAP and now I draw a minimal salary from the company and retain the earnings within the company. I had to establish cafeteria plan accounts to further shovel my minimal salary into tax-free buckets. It's a lot of freaking paperwork and compliance with federal/state laws is tricky. I still maintain my Schedule C/sole proprietorship as a capital purchase/lease back business so I'm back on the "3 out of 5" plan with respect to losses and profits. I'm one of 3 shareholders of the company and my intent is to pay myself via dividend after PSLF is completed.

My biggest fault was I was really conservative in my income calculations and its growth each year. Probably all the doom and gloom on these boards. Oh well. I initially calculated a a $250k forgiveness and $190k paid. I keyed in my actual income/growth and now I'm looking at $227k paid and $204k forgiven. BUT, with REPAYE expansion, I jumped in, my payments dropped to 10%, and the #'s came roaring back, with $151k paid and $268k forgiven.

Is all of this worth it, at just short of the halfway point? I'm not entirely sure. I didn't think I would be neck deep in tax strategy at this level, luckily it's kind of fun (like a puzzle). Had I gone the "fiscally prudent" path in 2007, borrowed only tuition ($28k x 3, $40k x 1), kept interest from capitalizing (I grossed $23k a year as an intern, 30hrs/week @ $15/hr), and made standard 10yr payments, I would have paid $199k. I would have likely refinanced like many on here and paid less ($170k total @ 4%).

So again, confettiflyer, was it worth it? Still not sure, but I'm inclined to say yes only because if the final cost difference between my current REPAYE/PSLF endeavor vs. a fiscally prudent path is $19,000, the amount of stuff I was able to experience (travel, social time out) and accomplish (investing, saving, buying a house, etc...) was worth it. I admit I could have probably accomplished most of it without IBR/REPAYE/PSLF had I gone the other way. There are too many variables going forward, but the #1 thing is income, and if we hit a huge patch of inflation, and wages rise accordingly, then game over. I will organically pay off the entire balance with minimal PSLF benefit at the end...and all of this "strategery" was for nought.

I probably could not fully recommend anyone starting now to go down this path -- my advice is to borrow for tuition, find an intern job, work like a dog, and minimize expenses, if anything, just to avoid this morass of accounting hell. Obviously, borrow more if you can't find an intern job and need to pay rent.


*yes, all my numbers are rough, don't hold me to them!
**notice, in each instance I list above, I pay > 60% of the original principal I took out, and as high as 90.8% before Obama expanded PAYE (I keyed in $250k to start, but I think my actual balance was much less, see above asterisk). That's pretty much buying solar panels and getting 30% back. The interest charged by the federal gov't is largely profit seeing as the 10 year treasury bill is like 2.4%. So borrow at 2.4%, lend at 6.8-8.5%? Know your #'s before you attack with the "ultimate amount being forgiven" number that will inevitably float around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I thought my solution was simpler, make tuition forgivable but living expenses not. After all, everyone needs to eat and have a place to sleep, etc. No reason to forgive that expense. And then people may stop getting butt hurt over how other people choose to spend their money.

Of course something still needs to be implemented to stop schools from raising tuition to infinity, I think a max loan cap is needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
**sorry, this is long, but it's my most honest take on the program yet. grab some popcorn**



These last two pages make me smile, finally some GOOD discussion on PSLF.

Tax code has always created winners and losers. Bitching about having gov't pay off someone else's remaining student loan balance is the same as bitching about someone buying solar panels and getting 30% of the price back from the gov't, or bitching that the mortgage interest of a home buyer distorts the market and is unfair to renters, or having kids and getting another $4k exemption on taxes is unfair to childless or infertile people.

All valid points and arguments, but if you want to be consistent, you have to admit that railing against PSLF but staying silent on those other deductions is hypocritical. You want to be a winner, and under current law (not necessarily future law), you are not. Try again next time.

I'm like the poster child of PSLF excess, I found out about the program and IBR my P-2 year and cranked up my borrowing to maximize the benefits. I penciled out the risks (tax and legislative changes) and the benefits (>$250k potentially forgiven) and figured it was worth a go. I pocketed my intern earnings and used that to travel extensively during school (Europe, Asia, many trips back to California, etc...) and eat and explore the east coast during my four years there. I didn't live in the most expensive high rise tower, but I didn't live in "student poverty housing" either. I ate out 3x/week+ and pretty much went out every weekend.

Everything from that point on involved minimizing AGI, which is no different from everyone's tax strategy today, but there was an additional benefit for every dollar I could deduct.

I graduated and did residency, and because of the lagging nature of IBR/later REPAYE, I enjoyed a sub-$500 payment for at least a year. In fact, the first year was somewhere in the range of $300 because I launched a side business the previous December and incurred a $5000+ net loss in start up costs. As previously discussed on here, I made sure to turn a technical profit (underreporting any losses) in 3 out of the 5 ensuing tax years. Properly placed, those two unprofitable years can generate a lot of deductible business losses. Remember, each dollar of reduced AGI pays dividends with the IBR/REPAYE payment.

A few things have thrown off my calculations and plan:

1) Income A - my W-2'd income is much higher than I originally thought it would be at graduation time. This proportionally contributes to a higher IBR/REPAYE payment and therefore reduces the eventual PSLF benefit. I cannot easily reduce this income for federal tax purposes.

2) Income B - my Schedule C "hobby/business" somehow turned into a much bigger thing and in year 5 of existence started generating a lot of income. I had flexibility in hiding this, so I opened an Individual 401k (with Vanguard, if you were wondering) and shoveled this money in there to keep my AGI from blowing up. I had to incorporate ASAP and now I draw a minimal salary from the company and retain the earnings within the company. I had to establish cafeteria plan accounts to further shovel my minimal salary into tax-free buckets. It's a lot of freaking paperwork and compliance with federal/state laws is tricky. I still maintain my Schedule C/sole proprietorship as a capital purchase/lease back business so I'm back on the "3 out of 5" plan with respect to losses and profits. I'm one of 3 shareholders of the company and my intent is to pay myself via dividend after PSLF is completed.

My biggest fault was I was really conservative in my income calculations and its growth each year. Probably all the doom and gloom on these boards. Oh well. I initially calculated a a $250k forgiveness and $190k paid. I keyed in my actual income/growth and now I'm looking at $227k paid and $204k forgiven. BUT, with REPAYE expansion, I jumped in, my payments dropped to 10%, and the #'s came roaring back, with $151k paid and $268k forgiven.

Is all of this worth it, at just short of the halfway point? I'm not entirely sure. I didn't think I would be neck deep in tax strategy at this level, luckily it's kind of fun (like a puzzle). Had I gone the "fiscally prudent" path in 2007, borrowed only tuition ($28k x 3, $40k x 1), kept interest from capitalizing (I grossed $23k a year as an intern, 30hrs/week @ $15/hr), and made standard 10yr payments, I would have paid $199k. I would have likely refinanced like many on here and paid less ($170k total @ 4%).

So again, confettiflyer, was it worth it? Still not sure, but I'm inclined to say yes only because if the final cost difference between my current REPAYE/PSLF endeavor vs. a fiscally prudent path is $19,000, the amount of stuff I was able to experience (travel, social time out) and accomplish (investing, saving, buying a house, etc...) was worth it. I admit I could have probably accomplished most of it without IBR/REPAYE/PSLF had I gone the other way. There are too many variables going forward, but the #1 thing is income, and if we hit a huge patch of inflation, and wages rise accordingly, then game over. I will organically pay off the entire balance with minimal PSLF benefit at the end...and all of this "strategery" was for nought.

I probably could not fully recommend anyone starting now to go down this path -- my advice is to borrow for tuition, find an intern job, work like a dog, and minimize expenses, if anything, just to avoid this morass of accounting hell. Obviously, borrow more if you can't find an intern job and need to pay rent.


*yes, all my numbers are rough, don't hold me to them!
**notice, in each instance I list above, I pay > 60% of the original principal I took out, and as high as 90.8% before Obama expanded PAYE (I keyed in $250k to start, but I think my actual balance was much less, see above asterisk). That's pretty much buying solar panels and getting 30% back. The interest charged by the federal gov't is largely profit seeing as the 10 year treasury bill is like 2.4%. So borrow at 2.4%, lend at 6.8-8.5%? Know your #'s before you attack with the "ultimate amount being forgiven" number that will inevitably float around.

And that's what I mean by a good deal, not a stupidly good deal. However, what I am curious about is how that changed the market for government workers and technical nonprofits. UPMC (Pittsburgh) and Kaiser are technical nonprofits, but they sure have no problem driving for-profit competitors out of business and playing as dirty a game as any for-profit entity. Runaway inflation like the 1970s also screws takers all in terms of IBR, since your income technically rises although your spending power vastly declines (but it does inflate away your loan). The actuaries in civil service are convinced that our national fiscal policy will need to do so to keep pensions afloat. There is no real growth, but with inflation, the pension plans will not be technically bankrupt due to 7% nominal returns on investment. What I want to have happen is that I take a ginormous loan and then watch it inflate away.

My own guess looking at the figures (I suppose I can do the actuarial math to make sure) is that a clear "winner" under relatively stable income growth would need to have a loan at least 2.5-3 times MAGI to make the payout nontrivial (more than 13 net paychecks) by playing the REPAYE game. This is assuming that the income loss from working for a nonprofit is not realizable (you would have worked for nonprofit irrespective of the choice) and that you would have not given yourself a work break in your first decade (and many would have for children).

As for tuition, well, someone has to pay those Title IX bureaucrats and all the administration (faculty salaries outside of the star outliers increased at the standing rate for us professionals). The faculty to non-faculty administration ratio is approaching 1:4 at even the most efficient universities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
  • Second, after PSLF’s creation in 2007, the program has literally been written into Direct federal student loan promissory notes (the contracts setting forth the terms and conditions of Direct program loans). I’ve spoken to several legal experts who believe it might be a contractual violation for the federal government to eliminate a program that is expressly made available by contract. They could eliminate the clause from future contracts, which would affect future borrowers, but not for current borrowers.
@Pharmacy Kid

Of course, the federal government would never be stupid enough to breach terms of a deal that would easily land them on the losing side of a court. That doesn't stop them from amending the tax code to clawback what they paid out, or imposing some reporting requirement that would cost you quite a bit to document, or make you run through some ridiculous forms and requires onerous documentation that easily gets lost in the paperwork shuttle, or takes five years to actually realize the reimbursement when you are assessed paper taxes immediately on the "gain." Or dink around with the formula for repayment. There are all sorts of creative options. Reason I'm saying is that don't think too narrowly, there are real clever scumbags in civil service as well. Many more of them work in DoD BUPERS, which the VA has to untangle some of those scumbag deals. That said, I really do not think that the federal government is going to get too creative on this one for already existing accounts. Mainly, unless Treasury has a problem financing the repayment, I can't see why DepEd would make such a fuss around it as it was a way to get disenfranchised (i.e. poor) students to complete advanced degrees. If we got good workers out of it, then from even the Republican standpoint, the investment in human capital works out in the nation's favor.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
**sorry, this is long, but it's my most honest take on the program yet. grab some popcorn**



These last two pages make me smile, finally some GOOD discussion on PSLF.

Tax code has always created winners and losers. Bitching about having gov't pay off someone else's remaining student loan balance is the same as bitching about someone buying solar panels and getting 30% of the price back from the gov't, or bitching that the mortgage interest of a home buyer distorts the market and is unfair to renters, or having kids and getting another $4k exemption on taxes is unfair to childless or infertile people.

All valid points and arguments, but if you want to be consistent, you have to admit that railing against PSLF but staying silent on those other deductions is hypocritical. You want to be a winner, and under current law (not necessarily future law), you are not. Try again next time.

I'm like the poster child of PSLF excess, I found out about the program and IBR my P-2 year and cranked up my borrowing to maximize the benefits. I penciled out the risks (tax and legislative changes) and the benefits (>$250k potentially forgiven) and figured it was worth a go. I pocketed my intern earnings and used that to travel extensively during school (Europe, Asia, many trips back to California, etc...) and eat and explore the east coast during my four years there. I didn't live in the most expensive high rise tower, but I didn't live in "student poverty housing" either. I ate out 3x/week+ and pretty much went out every weekend.

Everything from that point on involved minimizing AGI, which is no different from everyone's tax strategy today, but there was an additional benefit for every dollar I could deduct.

I graduated and did residency, and because of the lagging nature of IBR/later REPAYE, I enjoyed a sub-$500 payment for at least a year. In fact, the first year was somewhere in the range of $300 because I launched a side business the previous December and incurred a $5000+ net loss in start up costs. As previously discussed on here, I made sure to turn a technical profit (underreporting any losses) in 3 out of the 5 ensuing tax years. Properly placed, those two unprofitable years can generate a lot of deductible business losses. Remember, each dollar of reduced AGI pays dividends with the IBR/REPAYE payment.

A few things have thrown off my calculations and plan:

1) Income A - my W-2'd income is much higher than I originally thought it would be at graduation time. This proportionally contributes to a higher IBR/REPAYE payment and therefore reduces the eventual PSLF benefit. I cannot easily reduce this income for federal tax purposes.

2) Income B - my Schedule C "hobby/business" somehow turned into a much bigger thing and in year 5 of existence started generating a lot of income. I had flexibility in hiding this, so I opened an Individual 401k (with Vanguard, if you were wondering) and shoveled this money in there to keep my AGI from blowing up. I had to incorporate ASAP and now I draw a minimal salary from the company and retain the earnings within the company. I had to establish cafeteria plan accounts to further shovel my minimal salary into tax-free buckets. It's a lot of freaking paperwork and compliance with federal/state laws is tricky. I still maintain my Schedule C/sole proprietorship as a capital purchase/lease back business so I'm back on the "3 out of 5" plan with respect to losses and profits. I'm one of 3 shareholders of the company and my intent is to pay myself via dividend after PSLF is completed.

My biggest fault was I was really conservative in my income calculations and its growth each year. Probably all the doom and gloom on these boards. Oh well. I initially calculated a a $250k forgiveness and $190k paid. I keyed in my actual income/growth and now I'm looking at $227k paid and $204k forgiven. BUT, with REPAYE expansion, I jumped in, my payments dropped to 10%, and the #'s came roaring back, with $151k paid and $268k forgiven.

Is all of this worth it, at just short of the halfway point? I'm not entirely sure. I didn't think I would be neck deep in tax strategy at this level, luckily it's kind of fun (like a puzzle). Had I gone the "fiscally prudent" path in 2007, borrowed only tuition ($28k x 3, $40k x 1), kept interest from capitalizing (I grossed $23k a year as an intern, 30hrs/week @ $15/hr), and made standard 10yr payments, I would have paid $199k. I would have likely refinanced like many on here and paid less ($170k total @ 4%).

So again, confettiflyer, was it worth it? Still not sure, but I'm inclined to say yes only because if the final cost difference between my current REPAYE/PSLF endeavor vs. a fiscally prudent path is $19,000, the amount of stuff I was able to experience (travel, social time out) and accomplish (investing, saving, buying a house, etc...) was worth it. I admit I could have probably accomplished most of it without IBR/REPAYE/PSLF had I gone the other way. There are too many variables going forward, but the #1 thing is income, and if we hit a huge patch of inflation, and wages rise accordingly, then game over. I will organically pay off the entire balance with minimal PSLF benefit at the end...and all of this "strategery" was for nought.

I probably could not fully recommend anyone starting now to go down this path -- my advice is to borrow for tuition, find an intern job, work like a dog, and minimize expenses, if anything, just to avoid this morass of accounting hell. Obviously, borrow more if you can't find an intern job and need to pay rent.


*yes, all my numbers are rough, don't hold me to them!
**notice, in each instance I list above, I pay > 60% of the original principal I took out, and as high as 90.8% before Obama expanded PAYE (I keyed in $250k to start, but I think my actual balance was much less, see above asterisk). That's pretty much buying solar panels and getting 30% back. The interest charged by the federal gov't is largely profit seeing as the 10 year treasury bill is like 2.4%. So borrow at 2.4%, lend at 6.8-8.5%? Know your #'s before you attack with the "ultimate amount being forgiven" number that will inevitably float around.

Wow.....


I thought my solution was simpler, make tuition forgivable but living expenses not. After all, everyone needs to eat and have a place to sleep, etc. No reason to forgive that expense. And then people may stop getting butt hurt over how other people choose to spend their money.

Of course something still needs to be implemented to stop schools from raising tuition to infinity, I think a max loan cap is needed.

Mark Cuban has already touched this.


And that's what I mean by a good deal, not a stupidly good deal. However, what I am curious about is how that changed the market for government workers and technical nonprofits. UPMC (Pittsburgh) and Kaiser are technical nonprofits, but they sure have no problem driving for-profit competitors out of business and playing as dirty a game as any for-profit entity. Runaway inflation like the 1970s also screws takers all in terms of IBR, since your income technically rises although your spending power vastly declines (but it does inflate away your loan). The actuaries in civil service are convinced that our national fiscal policy will need to do so to keep pensions afloat. There is no real growth, but with inflation, the pension plans will not be technically bankrupt due to 7% nominal returns on investment. What I want to have happen is that I take a ginormous loan and then watch it inflate away.

My own guess looking at the figures (I suppose I can do the actuarial math to make sure) is that a clear "winner" under relatively stable income growth would need to have a loan at least 2.5-3 times MAGI to make the payout nontrivial (more than 13 net paychecks) by playing the REPAYE game. This is assuming that the income loss from working for a nonprofit is not realizable (you would have worked for nonprofit irrespective of the choice) and that you would have not given yourself a work break in your first decade (and many would have for children).

As for tuition, well, someone has to pay those Title IX bureaucrats and all the administration (faculty salaries outside of the star outliers increased at the standing rate for us professionals). The faculty to non-faculty administration ratio is approaching 1:4 at even the most efficient universities.

I had no clue the ratio was getting there. That much paper pushing?

I was unaware Kaiser was a nonprofit (probably half your age. Still learning things that should be basic knowledge I guess) Psychiatrists can pull 275k seeing a meager caseload apparently and my own field has six fig salaries dependent on position.

Of course, the federal government would never be stupid enough to breach terms of a deal that would easily land them on the losing side of a court. That doesn't stop them from amending the tax code to clawback what they paid out, or imposing some reporting requirement that would cost you quite a bit to document, or make you run through some ridiculous forms and requires onerous documentation that easily gets lost in the paperwork shuttle, or takes five years to actually realize the reimbursement when you are assessed paper taxes immediately on the "gain." Or dink around with the formula for repayment. There are all sorts of creative options. Reason I'm saying is that don't think too narrowly, there are real clever scumbags in civil service as well. Many more of them work in DoD BUPERS, which the VA has to untangle some of those scumbag deals. That said, I really do not think that the federal government is going to get too creative on this one for already existing accounts. Mainly, unless Treasury has a problem financing the repayment, I can't see why DepEd would make such a fuss around it as it was a way to get disenfranchised (i.e. poor) students to complete advanced degrees. If we got good workers out of it, then from even the Republican standpoint, the investment in human capital works out in the nation's favor.

Just for fun, unrelated commentary, but Id like to introduce some of the stupidity of the fed and our education department.

A philanthropist, a student loan profiteer, a woman with glasses, the best glasses! Everyone else's glasses are terrible!
 
Last edited:
There's a pretty big difference of scale between a $4k child tax exemption (not even a credit; this is only worth approximately $1k for many pharmacists), 30% credits for solar panels, and $268k of forgiven loans.

I think this discussion makes people upset because the PSLF program clearly incentivizes people making the wrong choices to make more of the wrong choices at a cost to taxpayers. The responsible thing is to pay loans off quickly and minimize their use, not max them out whenever possible, then evade paying on them so the other taxpayers can pick up the bill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
There's a pretty big difference of scale between a $4k child tax exemption (not even a credit; this is only worth approximately $1k for many pharmacists), 30% credits for solar panels, and $268k of forgiven loans.

I think this discussion makes people upset because the PSLF program clearly incentivizes people making the wrong choices to make more of the wrong choices at a cost to taxpayers. The responsible thing is to pay loans off quickly and minimize their use, not max them out whenever possible, then evade paying on them so the other taxpayers can pick up the bill.

And that's a fair point, creating incentives for unintended (or, in my case, intended) behavior is a valid criticism.

But I have to argue against your numbers, because it's all about proportion and perception. I bought $15,000 worth of solar panels in my home purchase, and received $4500 back in credits. In my best case scenario above, I argue that I will end up paying $151,000 and receive a federal credit worth $99,000 (principal balance remaining, excluding interest). Because the government has essentially been borrowing money at close to zero cost, that "$268k forgiven" is a fantasy number not rooted in reality. There is no opportunity cost here, it's not like I borrowed from you and you had to forego some sort of activity because it's not like the government had $268k to spend 10 years ago that would have gotten a 7% ROI.

And in case anyone is interested, reducing the benefit of PSLF to $57k will save a whopping $6.7B over TEN YEARS. (Source: CBO, OPTIONS FOR REDUCING THE DEFICIT: 2017 TO 2026). To put that into perspective, that's just over what solar or wind power gets in federal subsidies in ONE YEAR (Source: EIA, Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2013)


tl;dr = moral hazard happens, the government is not a person and cannot be treated as such, curtailing PSLF saves in 10 years equals about how much solar subsidies exist in 1 year....that is, focusing on PSLF is like focusing on the mythical Welfare Queen of yore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Which investment is a better use of public resources? Solar and wind power benefits a lot more people than PSLF, regardless of the fact that it's a larger program. I don't think the size of the program is a valid argument from a logical perspective.

PSLF makes sense for some workers -- like social workers, who are arguably underpaid for their work and perform valuable public services. People who are paid a fair market rate don't seem like the intended beneficiaries of PSLF, whether they work for a nonprofit or not.
 
Which investment is a better use of public resources? Solar and wind power benefits a lot more people than PSLF, regardless of the fact that it's a larger program. I don't think the size of the program is a valid argument from a logical perspective.

PSLF makes sense for some workers -- like social workers, who are arguably underpaid for their work and perform valuable public services. People who are paid a fair market rate don't seem like the intended beneficiaries of PSLF, whether they work for a nonprofit or not.

How do we define and measure what's "better?" Was the excess spending that my excess borrowing generated, in fact, less economically valuable than the inducement of the solar program? One can argue that my excess spending contributed to a greater number of jobs across a wider group of workers than solar. How do you value the environmental externalities that solar mitigates?

Are electric car rebates also a better use of public resources? Gov't ends up spending money to help buy a car that an electric car fan can probably afford on their own. Sure, there are those that are on the fence, but isn't that the same as high earners on PSLF? We can afford the payment, but why bother, when a tax policy is in place?

By definition, social workers are paid fair market rate...whatever they are getting paid is, in fact, the market rate. An opinion that they are underpaid is just that, an opinion (one that I share, but I digress).

These are rhetorical questions, and there are no real answers to them. But I put them out there to illustrate my point that PSLF is no different from any other gov't policy, and the fact that high earners disproportionately benefit is simply in line with the rest of our tax policy (deductions are more valuable at higher incomes, etc...). Another question, is subsidizing corn to the benefit of a few large corporate farms a good use of funds?

On Inducement
I pretty much went from a 15% chance of going into retail post-grad to 0% thanks to this program. That was one of the intents of the program, to push people to non-profit work. In every area other than California, non-profit hospital work pays less.

That was the intent of the program and I met it, it will just cost more. A senator/legislator (I forgot who) tried to insert language into the original 2007 provision to cap the dollar amount, but that failed to materialize.

On Making the Program Better
Gave this much thought this morning. The best way, I think, to balance competing claims and feasibility is to cap PSLF at $160,000 for graduate ($40,000 per year, $57,500 for undergraduate), and index them both to inflation. This at least cuts off the "unlimited" part of the program, but provides a large enough benefit to induce people into public sector work. Since educational inflation > standard inflation, this benefit decreases over time and may need a look every 10 years or so.

I'd personally like to see these amounts payable every 5 years.

Ideally, I'd cap the amount at the total tuition amount of the nearest state university program, but that would be impossible to implement.

The other idea I'd get behind is the Trump plan (12.5% IBR for 15 years regardless of employment) and have a separate block grant system for public service (maybe like $10,000 per year, max 5 years, payable at 5 years) regardless of loan status.
 
I thought my solution was simpler, make tuition forgivable but living expenses not. After all, everyone needs to eat and have a place to sleep, etc. No reason to forgive that expense. And then people may stop getting butt hurt over how other people choose to spend their money.

Of course something still needs to be implemented to stop schools from raising tuition to infinity, I think a max loan cap is needed.

Those for-profit schools that pop up like mushrooms and then get shut down when their graduates fail to find jobs (and pay off their own loans) have a slight tendency to charge tuition equal to the maximum amount obtainable through Pell Grants and/or other loans.

:boom:
 
Those for-profit schools that pop up like mushrooms and then get shut down when their graduates fail to find jobs (and pay off their own loans) have a slight tendency to charge tuition equal to the maximum amount obtainable through Pell Grants and/or other loans. Some have also used the GI Bill to take advantage of naive people.

:boom:

Oops, I meant to edit my post, not reply to it.

"Some have also used the GI Bill to take advantage of naive people."
 
Last edited:
**sorry, this is long, but it's my most honest take on the program yet. grab some popcorn**



These last two pages make me smile, finally some GOOD discussion on PSLF.

Tax code has always created winners and losers. Bitching about having gov't pay off someone else's remaining student loan balance is the same as bitching about someone buying solar panels and getting 30% of the price back from the gov't, or bitching that the mortgage interest of a home buyer distorts the market and is unfair to renters, or having kids and getting another $4k exemption on taxes is unfair to childless or infertile people.

All valid points and arguments, but if you want to be consistent, you have to admit that railing against PSLF but staying silent on those other deductions is hypocritical. You want to be a winner, and under current law (not necessarily future law), you are not. Try again next time.

I'm like the poster child of PSLF excess, I found out about the program and IBR my P-2 year and cranked up my borrowing to maximize the benefits. I penciled out the risks (tax and legislative changes) and the benefits (>$250k potentially forgiven) and figured it was worth a go. I pocketed my intern earnings and used that to travel extensively during school (Europe, Asia, many trips back to California, etc...) and eat and explore the east coast during my four years there. I didn't live in the most expensive high rise tower, but I didn't live in "student poverty housing" either. I ate out 3x/week+ and pretty much went out every weekend.

Everything from that point on involved minimizing AGI, which is no different from everyone's tax strategy today, but there was an additional benefit for every dollar I could deduct.

I graduated and did residency, and because of the lagging nature of IBR/later REPAYE, I enjoyed a sub-$500 payment for at least a year. In fact, the first year was somewhere in the range of $300 because I launched a side business the previous December and incurred a $5000+ net loss in start up costs. As previously discussed on here, I made sure to turn a technical profit (underreporting any losses) in 3 out of the 5 ensuing tax years. Properly placed, those two unprofitable years can generate a lot of deductible business losses. Remember, each dollar of reduced AGI pays dividends with the IBR/REPAYE payment.

A few things have thrown off my calculations and plan:

1) Income A - my W-2'd income is much higher than I originally thought it would be at graduation time. This proportionally contributes to a higher IBR/REPAYE payment and therefore reduces the eventual PSLF benefit. I cannot easily reduce this income for federal tax purposes.

2) Income B - my Schedule C "hobby/business" somehow turned into a much bigger thing and in year 5 of existence started generating a lot of income. I had flexibility in hiding this, so I opened an Individual 401k (with Vanguard, if you were wondering) and shoveled this money in there to keep my AGI from blowing up. I had to incorporate ASAP and now I draw a minimal salary from the company and retain the earnings within the company. I had to establish cafeteria plan accounts to further shovel my minimal salary into tax-free buckets. It's a lot of freaking paperwork and compliance with federal/state laws is tricky. I still maintain my Schedule C/sole proprietorship as a capital purchase/lease back business so I'm back on the "3 out of 5" plan with respect to losses and profits. I'm one of 3 shareholders of the company and my intent is to pay myself via dividend after PSLF is completed.

My biggest fault was I was really conservative in my income calculations and its growth each year. Probably all the doom and gloom on these boards. Oh well. I initially calculated a a $250k forgiveness and $190k paid. I keyed in my actual income/growth and now I'm looking at $227k paid and $204k forgiven. BUT, with REPAYE expansion, I jumped in, my payments dropped to 10%, and the #'s came roaring back, with $151k paid and $268k forgiven.

Is all of this worth it, at just short of the halfway point? I'm not entirely sure. I didn't think I would be neck deep in tax strategy at this level, luckily it's kind of fun (like a puzzle). Had I gone the "fiscally prudent" path in 2007, borrowed only tuition ($28k x 3, $40k x 1), kept interest from capitalizing (I grossed $23k a year as an intern, 30hrs/week @ $15/hr), and made standard 10yr payments, I would have paid $199k. I would have likely refinanced like many on here and paid less ($170k total @ 4%).

So again, confettiflyer, was it worth it? Still not sure, but I'm inclined to say yes only because if the final cost difference between my current REPAYE/PSLF endeavor vs. a fiscally prudent path is $19,000, the amount of stuff I was able to experience (travel, social time out) and accomplish (investing, saving, buying a house, etc...) was worth it. I admit I could have probably accomplished most of it without IBR/REPAYE/PSLF had I gone the other way. There are too many variables going forward, but the #1 thing is income, and if we hit a huge patch of inflation, and wages rise accordingly, then game over. I will organically pay off the entire balance with minimal PSLF benefit at the end...and all of this "strategery" was for nought.

I probably could not fully recommend anyone starting now to go down this path -- my advice is to borrow for tuition, find an intern job, work like a dog, and minimize expenses, if anything, just to avoid this morass of accounting hell. Obviously, borrow more if you can't find an intern job and need to pay rent.


*yes, all my numbers are rough, don't hold me to them!
**notice, in each instance I list above, I pay > 60% of the original principal I took out, and as high as 90.8% before Obama expanded PAYE (I keyed in $250k to start, but I think my actual balance was much less, see above asterisk). That's pretty much buying solar panels and getting 30% back. The interest charged by the federal gov't is largely profit seeing as the 10 year treasury bill is like 2.4%. So borrow at 2.4%, lend at 6.8-8.5%? Know your #'s before you attack with the "ultimate amount being forgiven" number that will inevitably float around.

Hmmm, the truth comes out.
 
Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but that seems way (!) out in left field (like the numbers are reversed).
Could you explain this ratio further?

Sorry, should have defined:

For every faculty member FTE (and I mean both the tenure and clinical tracks who are paid and not titular), there are four administrative staff FTE. That used to be closer to 1:2 and if the school only is in the teaching business, then it's closer to that. We have a bunch of administration staff for the:
1. General admin (Dean's office, admin officer/secretarial pool, executive assistants to endowed chairs) - Static, pretty much the same as the 1980s.
2. Sponsored Projects Administration/Organization (so NIH, NCI, NSF, RWJF, and other granting agencies) - Huge growth opportunities
3. State controller personnel for finance, accounting, and fund control - Less than the 1980s due to office automation and decreased state funding. Make your own *#$( budgets!
4. Title IX and CMS (Medicare, Medicaid, 340B) programs - Huge growth opportunities, least liked group.

and it's getting worse. I counted for my place as it's a point of contention between College and University on who is responsible for funding these positions, and it's 52 FTE to 178 admin FTE paid for by the budget. Without Sponsored Projects, it would be more like ~30/~80. Grant administration and Title IX/CMS due to running a 340B and federal/state pharmacies are really time-consuming to oversee.
 
There's a pretty big difference of scale between a $4k child tax exemption (not even a credit; this is only worth approximately $1k for many pharmacists), 30% credits for solar panels, and $268k of forgiven loans.

I think this discussion makes people upset because the PSLF program clearly incentivizes people making the wrong choices to make more of the wrong choices at a cost to taxpayers. The responsible thing is to pay loans off quickly and minimize their use, not max them out whenever possible, then evade paying on them so the other taxpayers can pick up the bill.

I think that students should know what they will be getting. They are making decisions based on the presence of loan forgiveness being available. If it was NOT available...they'd be making different decisions. Just let us know what programs will or won't be available to us so that we can make the right financial decisions.
 
Top