Any hope for ever paying off huge student loan debts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EnglishTeacher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Your monthly payment on 100k, at standard 10 year payment plan, would be about 1000 dollars a month. That would mean half of your income is already going to pay student loans, leaving you very little to live on. I do think you are at the point where you simply aren’t earning enough income. There is no amount of creative budgeting can make up for that.
Pretty much. I need a much better job (or at least an additional part-time job or two until I get that.) I am already on an income-based repayment plan, so I don’t pay $1,000 a month, but it’s still a big slice of my income. Plus, the smaller payments don’t do much to chip away at the debt.
 
The loan debt is over $100,000. It started out in the 98,000 range, I think, but there was a time when it was in deferment, so the interest accrued very fast.

My current gross income is about $25,000.

I do try to live frugally, and am going to cut back still farther. I don’t have cable; I have a cheap phone plan; and have been buying clothes second-hand. I have a one-bedroom apartment and am looking to switch over to a studio with cheaper rent.

It just seems hopeless, though. Any cuts that I can make in my expenses, even with an additional job, will still not even make a noticeable dent in a loan debt of that size. Living frugally (although I intend to continue doing so), even for the rest of my life, just isn’t going to cut it. But I will look into the suggestions made here, including the NSLDS site.
If you don’t have a roommate, could you get one? I started out with about $60,000 and now am down to less than $10,000, about ten years later. Mostly this is because when I got married and moved in with my husband, we were able to put my entire income toward debt and savings, and were very careful to live frugally on his income alone. Getting a roommate would halve your living expenses, probably an even better situation than getting a studio apartment since you would still have to pay all utilities.

I agree with the others, though, who said that increasing your income is really going to be the best way to attack this.
 
A good goal would be to double your income.

Even then, paying off $100k wouldn’t be easy, but it would be a workable goal.

Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University could be very helpful, just as much for the peer support as for the actual information. I wouldn’t pay the $100 for the 9 week course in your situation, but call around every few months and see if anybody is doing a scholarship. (I plan to facilitate the course in future and will probably be doing at least several scholarships.)

Best wishes!
 
If you don’t have a roommate, could you get one? I started out with about $60,000 and now am down to less than $10,000, about ten years later. Mostly this is because when I got married and moved in with my husband, we were able to put my entire income toward debt and savings, and were very careful to live frugally on his income alone. Getting a roommate would halve your living expenses, probably an even better situation than getting a studio apartment since you would still have to pay all utilities.

I agree with the others, though, who said that increasing your income is really going to be the best way to attack this.
Congratulations, Lorelei12!

That’s fantastic!
 
Pretty much. I need a much better job (or at least an additional part-time job or two until I get that.) I am already on an income-based repayment plan, so I don’t pay $1,000 a month, but it’s still a big slice of my income. Plus, the smaller payments don’t do much to chip away at the debt.
Be careful. With the income-based repayment plan you’ll have to pay on your balance for 25 years at which point the loan will be forgiven and treated for tax purposes as income. During the whole time you’re paying on the loan interest is continuing to pile up on the original principal, so who knows what kind of money you will owe the IRS 25 years from now. (someone please correct me if I’m wrong)

You would make much more money if you were just able to learn a trade. You would also avoid taxation (on the first 97,600) if you were will to live abroad. Honestly, if it were me I would learn a trade and move to Abu Dhabi for 5 years. I don’t know your situation so I’m not pretending to give you career advice, just a suggestion.
 
Be careful. With the income-based repayment plan you’ll have to pay on your balance for 25 years at which point the loan will be forgiven and treated for tax purposes as income. During the whole time you’re paying on the loan interest is continuing to pile up on the original principal, so who knows what kind of money you will owe the IRS 25 years from now. (someone please correct me if I’m wrong)

You would make much more money if you were just able to learn a trade. You would also avoid taxation (on the first 97,600) if you were will to live abroad. Honestly, if it were me I would learn a trade and move to Abu Dhabi for 5 years. I don’t know your situation so I’m not pretending to give you career advice, just a suggestion.
Yes, as the law stands now, the income based programs have a tax liability when the balance is forgiven. The employment based forgiveness programs (teaching, nursing, etc) are tax-exempt. So, it depends.
 
Be careful. With the income-based repayment plan you’ll have to pay on your balance for 25 years at which point the loan will be forgiven and treated for tax purposes as income. During the whole time you’re paying on the loan interest is continuing to pile up on the original principal, so who knows what kind of money you will owe the IRS 25 years from now. (someone please correct me if I’m wrong)

You would make much more money if you were just able to learn a trade. You would also avoid taxation (on the first 97,600) if you were will to live abroad. Honestly, if it were me I would learn a trade and move to Abu Dhabi for 5 years. I don’t know your situation so I’m not pretending to give you career advice, just a suggestion.
Yes, as the law stands now, the income based programs have a tax liability when the balance is forgiven. The employment based forgiveness programs (teaching, nursing, etc) are tax-exempt. So, it depends.
Oh my, I did not know that. Scary.
 
Oh my, I did not know that. Scary.
Right, so say at the end of 25 years say you have an outstanding balance of 120,000 and earn 40,000. You would then be taxed like you earn 160,000. Yes, it doesn’t seem you’re covering the accrued interest on your original principle so the forgiven debt may very well be more than the original balance. But you need to get real financial advice so that you can make an informed decision as to the way forward.
 
Need to consider overseas teaching options: someone I know just took a two year contract to teach in Qatar. Don’t know the salary but web searches give US$2400 to US$3700 per month as a range depending on experience and area of expertise. She’s probably close to the higher end as she has 15+ years experience as a teacher. On the surface, that doesn’t sound like a lot, but first, the income will be exempt from US taxation (look up foreign earned income exclusion; a poster above cited this limit as $97,600) and Qatar income tax free as well. No FICA/Medicare being withheld either. So that’s a good chunk of change. Next, typical benefits include free accommodation and free medical. Airfare might be subsidized as well. If you were credentialed to teach something else besides English, you might do better there too.

Lots of overseas teaching newsgroups and forums out there for you to peruse. You might consider researching international schools in places like Singapore, Bangkok, South Korea, Hong Kong, Tokyo, etc., as some of these pay well though they can be hard to get into. I wouldn’t keep anything in storage in the US. Let it all go down to a few boxes you can store at a friend’s or family member.

If you don’t want to go overseas, then you need to boost your income. You get summers off from teaching? Consider using that time to learn a trade. Consider a second job.
 

If people had to pay for their own schooling, as they primarily did 20-30 years ago, it would not cost what it does today. Dorms would not be palaces as they have become in the last 10 years. And, the federal taxpayer would not be subsidizing all this.
Regrettably, that model also saw higher education even more restricted to the children of well-off families.
 
Regrettably, that model also saw higher education even more restricted to the children of well-off families.
But is that really any better than having a whole generation saddled with debt? Not everyone’s situation is as bad as mine, of course; but student loan debt is a pervasive enough problem that it has been making the news often throughout the past couple of years.

Anything is better than being weighed down by a mountain of debt. Higher education is great, but not so great that it is worth going into massive debt for.
 
The loan debt is over $100,000. It started out in the 98,000 range, I think, but there was a time when it was in deferment, so the interest accrued very fast.

My current gross income is about $25,000.

I do try to live frugally, and am going to cut back still farther. I don’t have cable; I have a cheap phone plan; and have been buying clothes second-hand. I have a one-bedroom apartment and am looking to switch over to a studio with cheaper rent.

It just seems hopeless, though. Any cuts that I can make in my expenses, even with an additional job, will still not even make a noticeable dent in a loan debt of that size. Living frugally (although I intend to continue doing so), even for the rest of my life, just isn’t going to cut it. But I will look into the suggestions made here, including the NSLDS site.
Your income appears terribly low. The US policy is broken on a few fronts. First, you should not have to repay until your income achieves a reasonable level, and interest should not accumulate till then either. I take the view the whole society is enriched by the better education of people, and so some contribution from society makes sense. To the extent individuals must fund their own education, the children of well off families are advantaged, and the less well off disadvantaged. Of course, you could say this about cars and houses too, but education is special; it is the great leveler, equipping people to make their way in the world.
 
But is that really any better than having a whole generation saddled with debt? Not everyone’s situation is as bad as mine, of course; but student loan debt is a pervasive enough problem that it has been making the news often throughout the past couple of years.

Anything is better than being weighed down by a mountain of debt. Higher education is great, but not so great that it is worth going into massive debt for.
No, it is not good that education is restricted to the well-off; that’s my point, but it is what happens when people must entirely pay their own way.

Massive debts is primarily an outcome of poor US policy. The balance between self funded and society funded is poorly chosen in my view.
 
No, it is not good that education is restricted to the well-off; that’s my point, but it is what happens when people must entirely pay their own way.

Massive debts is primarily an outcome of poor US policy. The balance between self funded and society funded is poorly chosen in my view.
I agree that the US policy is terribly broken. A balance between the two extremes would be excellent.

Given the choice between two extremes, though, I think the more desirable alternative is fewer people attending college. There are plenty of ways to get ahead without attending college and/or grad school, but very few ways, if any, when you are saddled with massive debt.
 
I agree that the US policy is terribly broken. A balance between the two extremes would be excellent.

Given the choice between two extremes, though, I think the more desirable alternative is fewer people attending college. There are plenty of ways to get ahead without attending college and/or grad school, but very few ways, if any, when you are saddled with massive debt.
Perhaps, but selection of those who can go to college on the basis of family wealth is just wrong. In some jurisdictions, government scholarships were provided to the best students, but 100% government funding was also not the right balance.

In my view, % of the cost should be wholly governememt funded, and the remainder paid for by the student accessing loans at an interest rate equal to inflation, and with repayments/interest commencing when salary reaches a reasonable threshold. This is fair in that it does not disadvantage lower income earners or women who may be out of the workforce for a few years having children (and thus face mounting debt).
 
Regrettably, that model also saw higher education even more restricted to the children of well-off families.
That’s not necessarily true. There was a time when it was possible for someone to get through a private school with some combination of scholarships, grants, parental funds, part time jobs and loans, then graduate with a student loan that was about the size of a moderately expensive car. I should know, I was one of those students.

For those without parental assistance, they could go to the public schools in many states and it was still possible to get out with modest loans at most. Work part time while going to school, it was possible for the part time employment to provide a considerable portion of the expenses.

Not anymore. The loans are guaranteed by the government so the private entities love to make them because they’re going to get paid no matter what. The colleges love the additional money coming in, how do you think all those college administrators get so well paid, how do you think so many new (and expensive) facilities got built. Understand something here: that additional money is coming from the student loans and not going back into student instruction. I haven’t stepped on my college campus in many years, but I’m told I wouldn’t recognize a substantial portion of it anymore. So when they call me for donations, I tell them to stuff it, I donate to far more deserving entities.

As the amount of credit made available for college expenses rose so college costs rose to meet the newly available credit. No other way this was going to turn out. Whether the creditor is a private entity or the government, they love being a creditor because with the change in bankruptcy law making it almost impossible to discharge the loan, they got the student on lockdown and can strip his assets at their leisure. In other words, the OP’s paycheck isn’t his, he’s making the money for the entity holding his loan. Pretty much for his useful working life. What’s right about that? The students might get a 25 year forgiveness? Well the government is not done with him! There’s still the IRS to pay for that loan forgiveness considered income! Nothing like a parting shot that really smarts in the wallet.

In short, it’s truly evil what has been done to students like the OP.

Further, many students are steered to college who shouldn’t be, who would be better off attending vocational training or apprenticing themselves to trades instead. But there’s no money in that for colleges, banks or the government, so they do their darndest to steer as many students as possible into the college route where these kids can get their pockets cleaned out. As part of that, these kinds of trades don’t get the good press that colleges do. Read Mike Rowe sometime…

The answer is not in more loans, not in more government subsidies. Those courses of action are simply aimed at keeping the money gravy train flowing to the colleges, helping them continue to raise their prices, nothing more. The answer is in the following actions: (1), get the government completely out of the student loan business; (2), encourage students more suited to vocational training and apprenticeship to pursue them; and (3), student loans should not be guaranteed anymore, they should be dischargeable in bankruptcy. That would force lenders to actually evaluate students for their ability to pay the loans back. That would force lenders to charge higher interest for the risk. Which in turn would result in a considerable reduction in the money made available to colleges. Which is horror to college administrators and boards as they would be … shock! gasp! … forced to cut budgets, salaries, positions and tuition just to survive.
 
Regrettably, that model also saw higher education even more restricted to the children of well-off families.
I am not from a well off family. I went to a state school, earned scholarships, worked two on campus jobs during semesters, worked a full time waitress job in the summers, took cheaper junior college classes for things like government/English in summer school and transferred the credits.

I graduated with no debt.
 
That’s not necessarily true. There was a time when it was possible for someone to get through a private school with some combination of scholarships, grants, parental funds, part time jobs and loans, then graduate with a student loan that was about the size of a moderately expensive car. I should know, I was one of those students.

For those without parental assistance, they could go to the public schools in many states and it was still possible to get out with modest loans at most. Work part time while going to school, it was possible for the part time employment to provide a considerable portion of the expenses.

Not anymore. The loans are guaranteed by the government so the private entities love to make them because they’re going to get paid no matter what. The colleges love the additional money coming in, how do you think all those college administrators get so well paid, how do you think so many new (and expensive) facilities got built. Understand something here: that additional money is coming from the student loans and not going back into student instruction. I haven’t stepped on my college campus in many years, but I’m told I wouldn’t recognize a substantial portion of it anymore. So when they call me for donations, I tell them to stuff it, I donate to far more deserving entities.

As the amount of credit made available for college expenses rose so college costs rose to meet the newly available credit. No other way this was going to turn out. Whether the creditor is a private entity or the government, they love being a creditor because with the change in bankruptcy law making it almost impossible to discharge the loan, they got the student on lockdown and can strip his assets at their leisure. In other words, the OP’s paycheck isn’t his, he’s making the money for the entity holding his loan. Pretty much for his useful working life. What’s right about that? The students might get a 25 year forgiveness? Well the government is not done with him! There’s still the IRS to pay for that loan forgiveness considered income! Nothing like a parting shot that really smarts in the wallet.

In short, it’s truly evil what has been done to students like the OP.

Further, many students are steered to college who shouldn’t be, who would be better off attending vocational training or apprenticing themselves to trades instead. But there’s no money in that for colleges, banks or the government, so they do their darndest to steer as many students as possible into the college route where these kids can get their pockets cleaned out. As part of that, these kinds of trades don’t get the good press that colleges do. Read Mike Rowe sometime…

The answer is not in more loans, not in more government subsidies. Those courses of action are simply aimed at keeping the money gravy train flowing to the colleges, helping them continue to raise their prices, nothing more. The answer is in the following actions: (1), get the government completely out of the student loan business; (2), encourage students more suited to vocational training and apprenticeship to pursue them; and (3), student loans should not be guaranteed anymore, they should be dischargeable in bankruptcy. That would force lenders to actually evaluate students for their ability to pay the loans back. That would force lenders to charge higher interest for the risk. Which in turn would result in a considerable reduction in the money made available to colleges. Which is horror to college administrators and boards as they would be … shock! gasp! … forced to cut budgets, salaries, positions and tuition just to survive.
While I agree with much of what you say, it is axiomatic that expensive education, if funded solely by the student or family, will gravitate to the better off. This is a consequence of US policy. It is a great system if you are well-off, and very tough if you are not!
 
Regrettably, that model also saw higher education even more restricted to the children of well-off families.
Not at all. If you wanted to, you could go. It’s just that most people didn’t see the need.

My great-grandparents were not wealthy and were very blue collar (I believe they both at most an 8th grade education), but sent all four of their children to college (2 finished, one became a veterinarian and had a fancy Pasadena practice in the 1940s). My grandpa was one who did not finish (grandpa is not super academic), but he and my grandma (another college drop-out) sent all three of their kids to a private Protestant college in the late 1960s and all three got graduate degrees (two MAs and pharmacy school). Grandpa worked in a mill and farmed and grandma was a grocery store cashier. I believe my dad said he was able to cover about $1,000 of the $1,500 tuition with his summer work, so it wasn’t all on the parents. (I note that in both the case of my great-grandparents and my grandparents, it wasn’t just dad working, but both parents–I’m sure that made a difference in a day when few women worked.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top