,, Forum

[jurisx]

Jurisx has a tiny, pink, dick.

wow racism, always cool.......

[tigershark]

rent (lets say a 4k/month aparment for a total of 48k), and food and other essentials (20k)

What even?! You can most definitely avoid the 4k/month for an apartment. Find a fellow law student and get a place together. Will save you a ton of money in the long run since rent and bills will be split.

[manofjustice]

Also notice I didn't say the pay was too low. I said maybe it was, and that it should keep strict pace with inflation. Do you find these incorrect statements? I also said that law school costs too much. You disagree?

The increase in first year salaries has far exceeded inflation. We'd be worse off if those salaries had only kept your strict pace.

Campos with the response: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot. ... firms.html

DJM quoting Campos "Most of the run-up in starting salaries at big firms took place between the late 1950s and the mid-1980s. In real dollars the going rate is currently 14% lower than it was in 2006."

[manofjustice]

By some general math it would seem that if I make (hopefully) 160k first year and follow that path in a NYC or other big market firm, after taxes (38k), rent (lets say a 4k/month aparment for a total of 48k), and food and other essentials (20k).....where at about 54k so 10% is around 5k....

Theres a ton wrong with your post, but lets start here. Firstly, taxes will be more like 65k in NYC. Your take home pay will be around 95-100k. Secondly, anyone paying 4k a month for rent with 210k in loans is full retard. Thirdly, because staffords are no longer subsidized, you will be accruing interest all through law school. Your 210k will be more like 240k when you start working. Fourthly, no idea where you're getting your numbers from, but under no plan will you only be required to pay 5k a year towards loans on a 160k salary.

Bottom line: it is borderline insanity to go to law school today at a full sticker price, even HYS, let alone the t14, let ALONE anything beyond that.

[dingbat]

Also notice I didn't say the pay was too low. I said maybe it was, and that it should keep strict pace with inflation. Do you find these incorrect statements? I also said that law school costs too much. You disagree?

The increase in first year salaries has far exceeded inflation. We'd be worse off if those salaries had only kept your strict pace.

Campos with the response: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot. ... firms.html

DJM quoting Campos "Most of the run-up in starting salaries at big firms took place between the late 1950s and the mid-1980s. In real dollars the going rate is currently 14% lower than it was in 2006."

So salaries actually did not go up during a recession?

[ksllaw]

The third, more terrible option is going on IBR. If you don't get biglaw or gov/PI, it is likely you will wind up in a 60K job or something that makes it impossible to make the minimum payments plus interest on 240K (what your loans will be in three years). Therefore, you will have to go on IBR. However, you will probably be caught in the IBR death spiral, where interest accrues faster than the minimum payments IBR is making. Then, you are stuck hoping you can last 20 years for the government to forgive your loans (assuming the program is still around in 20 years, which is probably unlikely.)

timbs, is there any indication that IBR will somehow disappear before 20 years are up? I had a post about IBR a while back (here: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=194064 IBR - A Boon or Bane?), but we never discussed the issue of IBR possibly disappearing.

Is that even possible? Is there not language written into the program rules that once a person signs onto it that they will be given a guaranteed forgiveness after 20-25 years?

Just trying to find out more about it. Thanks.

[timbs4339]

The third, more terrible option is going on IBR. If you don't get biglaw or gov/PI, it is likely you will wind up in a 60K job or something that makes it impossible to make the minimum payments plus interest on 240K (what your loans will be in three years). Therefore, you will have to go on IBR. However, you will probably be caught in the IBR death spiral, where interest accrues faster than the minimum payments IBR is making. Then, you are stuck hoping you can last 20 years for the government to forgive your loans (assuming the program is still around in 20 years, which is probably unlikely.)

timbs, is there any indication that IBR will somehow disappear before 20 years are up? I had a post about IBR a while back (here: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=194064 IBR - A Boon or Bane?), but we never discussed the issue of IBR possibly disappearing.

Is that even possible? Is there not language written into the program rules that once a person signs onto it that they will be given a guaranteed forgiveness after 20-25 years?

Just trying to find out more about it. Thanks.

Whether it is legally possible to end IBR retroactively and whether it is politically practicable are two different questions entirely.

I believe the government could end IBR retroactively if they desired. They retroactively stripped student loans of bankruptcy protections. I've done some research on the topic and the MPN reads:

The terms of this Master Promissory Note (MPN) will be interpreted in accordance with the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED’s) regulations, as they may be amended in accordance with their effective date, and other applicable federal laws and regulations (collectively referred to as “the Act”).

http://www.direct.ed.gov/pubs/dlmpn.pdf

I read this to say that an act of Congress could amend the terms of the MPN retroactively including stripping IBR protection, while federal regulations cannot.

Now whether this is at all politically practicable is another question. 20 years is certainly a long time, and we know there is a pro-austerity faction comprised of politically powerful individuals and they are not particularly sympathetic to the concerns of students. There's already been a bill introduced to change IBR.

The progressives would fight back against any attempt to end IBR, although I have little hope that they would back the interests of students over those of Baby Boomers if hard budget choices had to be made. I am also of the opinion that the boomer generation that wields the power in this country will grow increasingly concerned with protecting their entitlement programs, especially when it becomes clear that they do not have the retirement savings necessary to maintain their standard of living. All sorts of revenue raising programs that are not on the table now, like a middle class tax hike, are going to be on the table in 10 years. I wouldn't bet my future on PAYE.

Also remember that non-dischargeability was driven by a fear of the anecdotal, maybe mythical, story of a rich yuppie MBA declaring bankruptcy on six-figure loan debt and then going to work for Goldman. They ignored the vastly more numerous examples of people whose lives were destroyed by student loan debt. I'm sure everyone can think of similar narratives/examples that could be used against IBR/PAYE, especially from the law school sector.