Here's what your monthly student loan bill could be under a new Republican plan
House Republicans have a plan to drastically change how millions of Americans repay their student debt.
Under the GOP's new proposal, known as the Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan, there would be just two repayment options for those with federal student loans. Currently, borrowers have about 12 ways to repay their student debt, according to higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz.
If the GOP plan is enacted, borrowers would be able to pay back their debt through a plan with fixed payments over 10 to 25 years, or via an income-driven repayment plan, called the "Repayment Assistance Plan."
Under the RAP plan, monthly bills for borrowers would be set as a share of their income, said Jason Delisle, a nonresident senior fellow at the Urban Institute. The percentage of income borrowers' would have to pay rises with their earnings, starting at 1% and going as high as 10%.
House Republicans unveiled their agenda to overhaul the student loan and financial aid system at the end of April, in an effort to tout savings for President Donald Trump's planned tax cuts.
Here's what monthly bills for student loan borrowers could be if the proposal becomes law.
While the U.S. Department of Education's current income-driven repayment plans typically conclude in loan forgiveness after 20 or 25 years, the new GOP plan wouldn't lead to debt cancellation for 30 years. New borrowers also wouldn't have a share of their income protected anymore, as they do now.
But the plan waives interest on certain payments, and parents receive a $50 discount on their monthly student loan payment per child.
More from Personal Finance:Is college still worth it? It is for most, but not allHow to maximize your college financial aid offerWhat student loan forgiveness opportunities remain under Trump
The GOP changes to student loan repayment plans would only apply to loans made after July 1, 2026. Those with existing loans should still have access to most of the current repayment plans.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
19 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
GOP tax bill would ease regulations on gun silencers and some rifles and shotguns
Advertisement Republicans who have long supported the changes, along with the gun industry, say the tax infringes on Second Amendment rights. They say silencers are mostly used by hunters and target shooters for sport. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Burdensome regulations and unconstitutional taxes shouldn't stand in the way of protecting American gun owners' hearing,' said Clyde, who owns two gun stores in Georgia and often wears a pin shaped like an assault rifle on his suit lapel. Democrats are fighting to stop the provision, which was unveiled days after two Minnesota state legislators were shot in their homes, as the bill speeds through the Senate. They argue that loosening regulations on silencers could make it easier for criminals and active shooters to conceal their weapons. Advertisement 'Parents don't want silencers on their streets, police don't want silencers on their streets,' said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. The gun language has broad support among Republicans and has received little attention as House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., work to settle differences within the party on cuts to Medicaid and energy tax credits, among other issues. But it is just one of hundreds of policy and spending items included to entice members to vote for the legislation that could have broad implications if the bill is enacted within weeks, as Trump wants. Inclusion of the provision is also a sharp turn from the climate in Washington just three years ago when Democrats, like Republicans now, controlled Congress and the White House and pushed through bipartisan gun legislation. The bill increased background checks for some buyers under the age of 21, made it easier to take firearms from potentially dangerous people and sent millions of dollars to mental health services in schools. Passed in the summer of 2022, just weeks after the shooting of 19 children and two adults at a school in Uvalde, Texas, it was the most significant legislative response to gun violence in decades. Three years later, as they try to take advantage of their consolidated power in Washington, Republicans are packing as many of their longtime priorities as possible, including the gun legislation, into the massive, wide-ranging bill that Trump has called 'beautiful.' 'I'm glad the Senate is joining the House to stand up for the Second Amendment and our Constitution, and I will continue to fight for these priorities as the Senate works to pass President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill,' said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who was one of the lead negotiators on the bipartisan gun bill in 2022 but is now facing a primary challenge from the right in his bid for reelection next year. Advertisement If the gun provisions remain in the larger legislation and it is passed, silencers and the short-barrel rifles and shotguns would lose an extra layer of regulation that they are subject to under the National Firearms Act, passed in the 1930s in response to concerns about mafia violence. They would still be subject to the same regulations that apply to most other guns — and that includes possible loopholes that allow some gun buyers to avoid background checks when guns are sold privately or online. Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, who supports the legislation, says changes are aimed at helping target shooters and hunters protect their hearing. He argues that the use of silencers in violent crimes is rare. 'All it's ever intended to do is to reduce the report of the firearm to hearing safe levels,' Keane says. Speaking on the floor before the bill passed the House, Rep. Clyde said the bill restores Second Amendment rights from 'over 90 years of draconian taxes.' Clyde said Johnson included his legislation in the larger bill 'with the purest of motive.' 'Who asked for it? I asked,' said Clyde, who ultimately voted for the bill after the gun silencer provision was added. Clyde was responding to Rep. Maxwell Frost, a 28-year-old Florida Democrat, who went to the floor and demanded to know who was responsible for the gun provision. Frost, who was a gun-control activist before being elected to Congress, called himself a member of the 'mass shooting generation' and said the bill would help 'gun manufacturers make more money off the death of children and our people.' Advertisement Among other concerns, control advocates say less regulation for silencers could make it harder for law enforcement to stop an active shooter. 'There's a reason silencers have been regulated for nearly a century: They make it much harder for law enforcement and bystanders to react quickly to gunshots,' said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. Schumer and other Democrats are trying to convince the Senate parliamentarian to drop the language as she reviews the bill for policy provisions that aren't budget-related. 'Senate Democrats will fight this provision at the parliamentary level and every other level with everything we've got,' Schumer said earlier this month.
Boston Globe
29 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
GOP can't include limits on Trump lawsuits in megabill, Senate official rules
'Individual district judges -- who don't even have authority over any of the other 92 district courts -- are single-handedly vetoing policies the American people elected President Trump to implement,' Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chairm of the Judiciary Committee, said in announcing the proposal in March. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Republicans are pushing their bill to carry out Trump's agenda through Congress using special rules that shield legislation from a filibuster, depriving Democrats of the ability to block it. But to qualify for that protection, the legislation must only include proposals that directly change federal spending and not add to long-term deficits. Advertisement The Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, makes such judgments. She ruled that the measure did not meet the requirements, according to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. 'Senate Republicans tried to write Donald Trump's contempt for the courts into law -- gutting judicial enforcement, defying the Constitution, and bulldozing the very rule of law that forms our democracy,' Schumer said in a statement. 'It was nothing short of an assault on the system of checks and balances that has anchored this nation since its founding.' Advertisement Senate Republicans sought to target the preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders that often block administration policies. Republicans in the House passed a measure in their version of their party's major policy bill to impose limits on federal judges' power to hold people in contempt. The actions came as federal judges have opened inquiries about whether to hold the Trump administration in contempt for violating their orders in cases related to its aggressive deportation efforts. The decision on Sunday is part of a broader review MacDonough is conducting of the Republican-written legislation, which includes large tax cuts and reductions in social programs such as Medicaid and food stamps. She ruled that Republicans could include in their bill a divisive measure that would block states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., opposes that provision and has said he intends to introduce an amendment to try to kill the measure. MacDonough also rejected a GOP plan to push some of the costs of nutrition assistance, formerly known as SNAP, onto the states, a ruling that has sent Republicans back to the drawing board to find another strategy for covering tens of billions of dollars of the bill's cost. She was expected to work into the week evaluating the measure and instructing Republicans to strip out any provision she deems out of order, including whether they can use a budget trick that would make extending the 2017 tax cuts appear to be free. Advertisement If Republicans fail to remove the measures she deems out of order, Democrats could challenge the bill on the floor, forcing Republicans to muster 60 votes to advance it. That would effectively kill the legislation since Democrats are solidly opposed. This article originally appeared in
CNN
34 minutes ago
- CNN
What would you need to earn to feel financially secure? A quarter of Americans say $150,000 or more
Almost half of Americans (45%) think they would need to make $100,000 or more a year to 'feel financially secure' or 'comfortable,' according to a new survey from Bankrate. Breaking that down further, a quarter of respondents in total (26%) put the number at $150,000 or more. Among them, 8% said they would need to earn between $200,000 and $499,999, while another 8% said $500,000 or more. On the flip side, nearly half of respondents (45%) said they would feel financially secure making less than six figures, with 34% saying they would feel comfortable making between $50,00 and $99,999. The online survey, conducted by YouGov and taken by 2,260 US adults in mid-May, also asked 'What annual income would you need to feel rich/attain financial freedom?' More than half (55%) put the number at $200,000 or more. Among them, a quarter (26%) said it would take at least $1 million a year, while 13% said they would need to earn somewhere between $500,000 and $999,999. More than half of respondents (56%) said they needed to earn more than they are currently making to feel secure. So what do Americans make in reality? Based on the latest Census data, median US household income in 2023 was $80,610. That's the mid-point on incomes, meaning half of US households made less. But that median is across all households regardless of size. In family households specifically — where two or more people live — the median was $102,800. Within that group, the highest median ($119,400) reported was among married couples. In terms of individual incomes in 2023, the median income of a full-time worker with earnings working year round was $60,070. Neither the Bankrate survey nor the respondents specified what was meant by the terms 'financially secure' or 'rich,' nor what financial freedom meant to them. The answer, of course, will always be highly subjective. How much you personally think you need is going to be influenced by many factors, including: Your current income, your age, whether you have children, where you live, how much debt you have and what your monthly expenses are. (Not to mention assets that contribute to your net worth, such as a 401(k) or brokerage account, a home or a business. But the survey didn't address that issue.) Among Bankrate survey respondents, 54% of those who already made $100,000 or more said they'd need to make at least $150,000 to feel financially secure. Gen Xers (ages 45 to 60) were most likely (35%) to say they'd need to earn $150,000 or more to live comfortably, compared to 26% of millennials (ages 29 to 44) and 20% of Gen Zers (ages 18 to 28). Among parents with children under 18, 35% indicated earning $150,000 or more a year would make them feel financially secure. And those most likely to say they'd need to earn $1 million or more to feel financially free were parents whose children were 18 or older (33%). Bankrate asked respondents how they would describe their current level of financial security. Overall, most (77%) said they did not feel 'completely financially secure,' including 32% who said they didn't think they ever would. Those most likely to say they did feel 'completely financially secure' were people making at least $100,000. Within that income group, 42% of respondents said they considered themselves secure. Only a quarter of those in the $50,000 to $79,999 income group and 12% of those making less than $50,000 said the same. In terms of life stages, large majorities of each generation said they don't feel financially secure, including 84% of Gen Xers; 80% of Gen Zers; 79% of millennials and 69% of Baby Boomers. 'Getting rich may have once been what many Americans fantasized about, but now, simply living comfortably feels like the new aspiration, as economic challenges make financial stability a rare luxury,' said Bankrate economic analyst Sarah Foster.
