If the taxpayers actually cared about 1M defaulted student loans a year they could elect leaders who will take action.
Maybe you vote for a politician who will terminate federally guaranteed student loans. Maybe support one that will provide UBI, which will be adjusted based on student loan obligations. Maybe elect one that will reform the existing IBR/repayment options so 1M students are going into default every year.
But as we all know what your saying is a strawman when you have people like warran buffet paying less in taxes than his secretary. Obviously that’s not by accident and rich taxpayers have successfully organized/lobbied/passed multiple laws over the last 40 years providing tax breaks for the themselves and corporations.
I don’t think I argued that government intervention was needed to resolve the problem.
However, going back to 7th grade civics our government is split into 3 branches to distribute power and provide checks and balances. In this very instance the judicial system (government) is the forum where these facts and bad acts of the government were uncovered and a judge (government employee) reinstated the discharge in 3 of the 4 cases cited.
> Judge Timothy J Kelly of the DC Circuit Court found that the original determination letters had language in them that seemed final, in contrast to the Department of Ed’s claim that it was provisional.
Typically a debtor is going pay their home/car loans first (that’s not a huge surprise).
I agree it’s an astonishing number, and once you begin looking past the data and at the individual stories/anecdotes it’s heartbreaking. After all look at this article people are literally leaving the country.
I have 4 brothers all of us have a bachelors and advanced degree (1 MD, 2JDs and 2 Masters). I had a brother move to Korea to teach English, because he couldnt get a job. He had an undergraduate degree in information science and an MBA, graduated in 08’. People in this thread want to blame student choices and say it’s an issue of majors/skills...that’s not the problem.
Here is a decent write about about 4 such student lawsuits...funny you mention the federal government, because as you will see in this article the Dept. Of Ed. Was involved in these efforts to reset the discharge clocks, because the program was going to cost them more than expected. Specifically right before the first batch of discharged loans the Dept of Ed changed their rules on the fly (in violation of the Act) to make students ineligible for discharge.
Edit: I think In all 4 of these cases the Dept. Of Ed. Already approved these discharges, sent approval letters, then changed their rules and revoked the discharges. Again the rule changes were in violation of law and done because the costs of the program were so large.
>There is no reason anyone should ever default on an IBR loan. That’s the whole point of the income-based repayment.
Again that’s right in theory and what the banks report, however, individual law suits uncovered intentional efforts by the banks internally to force deferments and resetting the clock on IBR loan payers. Literally bank communications turned over in discovery on a number of lawsuits show instruction not to process annual financials, place the students in forebearance for a month, then process the documents so the clock reset.
Case in point the banks at no point inform loan holders when the IBR discharge clocks reset (sure student knew they were in forbearance for a month every year, but in these cases the students timely submitted the documents and students have no control over the bank processing times), it’s only when the students went for the discharge and were the students informed there clocks reset annually. Further bank communications showed this was also intentionally done so over the years the banks counted on the student losing their records and proof they timely submitted their annual financials.
And I’d argue that 98% (it’s actually 99.5%) of loan holders being denied discharge in IBR programs is proof the program is broken, but again the individual lawsuits against the banks/loan services broke this wide open. Then again we don’t need to look at the individual lawsuits either multiple state attorney generals have brought charges against the largest loan servicer for these acts and worse (continuing to collect on loans that were actually discharged), still it doesn’t seem that will help these students (like billion dollar fines against the banks didn’t help homeowners post 2008).
Well if you are going to frame it as taxpayers paying off the loans (I don’t necessarily agree with you framing it that way), then the taxpayers are also the ones that extended these guaranteed loans in the first place.
So by your logic, yes taxpayers are responsible to the extent they are guaranteeing loans in the first place which is what allows the schools to charge artificial prices which the data shows can’t be repaid in millions of cases because the jobs and wages aren’t there. The article maybe just a few anecdotes but when the data amounts to 1M defaults a year, at what point are you going to stop complaing about the taxpayers having to make up for the bad decisions of 18 year old kids trying to better their future and question taxpayer funded loans allowing the runaway school costs in the first place?
>the average college graduate has $30,000 in debt, which doesn't actually seem that bad.
Until you come to find out one of the college grads couldn’t get any employment and the one that did (with $100,000k+ in loans) got 3 part time jobs including Starbucks barista and mail delivery. That’s the reality for millions of America grads, not 6 figure SV jobs with stock options and health insurance.
The numbers and realities are devistating, 1 million grads are defaulting on their loans every year.
And your take on the income based repayment programs sounds like marketing and PR. These income based programs have been in play for over 10 years so the first groups of students (in government/non profit work) were in theory eligible to discharge their loans, yet something like 90% of the first batch were denied the discharge because the banks played games along the way (put students into deferment for a month while the banks reviewed student financials on annual renewals breaking the consecutive payment rule and restarting their 10 year clock every time). For the rest of the loan holders (the first batch who isn’t eligible for discharge until after 25 years) will be in a similar boat/rude awakening when their time comes - of the programs aren’t gutted first which has basically been threatened since the program began. Sure these programs exist but so does discharge of student loans in bankruptcy (but there is a reason why almost everyone thinks student loans aren’t dischargable in bankruptcy).
No if you ship a defective product back to Amazon, one that has caused injury, and they got rid of it and you sued, their act could and would likely be considered * spoilation of evidence*. As a result Amazon could be sanctioned by a court and have the burden of evidence shift against them (i.e. no longer do the plaintiffs/you have to prove the product was defective, now the defense would have to prove the product wasn't defective).
Can you give examples of what you mean by a defective product?
Do you mean the legal definition[1], more or less as in "unsafe"? Because if so, the reason they are likely telling you to discard defective product is so it can't be used as evidence in a liability case in the instance an unsafe product has caused any harm.
Maybe you vote for a politician who will terminate federally guaranteed student loans. Maybe support one that will provide UBI, which will be adjusted based on student loan obligations. Maybe elect one that will reform the existing IBR/repayment options so 1M students are going into default every year.
But as we all know what your saying is a strawman when you have people like warran buffet paying less in taxes than his secretary. Obviously that’s not by accident and rich taxpayers have successfully organized/lobbied/passed multiple laws over the last 40 years providing tax breaks for the themselves and corporations.