Trump student loan plans Forum

[ballouttacontrol]

let's subsidize government lawyers y'all!

[Nebby]

http://www.nalp.org/july14research

[elendinel]

I PMes him my email and he sent it to me. You can do the same. I don't want to distribute it without his permission.
Here is what he said in the thread:

Law school tuition is falling rapidly for about half of all students
Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:44 am

This is a FYI for current and prospective applicants. I just finished a study of changes in law school tuition between 2011 and 2015.

Bottom line: Although sticker tuition has gone up 16% during this time, effective tuition (tuition minus discounts) is down an average of 10.6% at all schools. This figure rises to 12.5% if you exclude elite schools, which collectively have raised tuition in real terms by 9%.

These are averages: at many schools outside the top 50, real tuition is down 20% or 30% or even 40% from 2011. (Note these are 2015 numbers as 2016 numbers on discounting won't be available until this fall). The complicating factor is that this massive increase in the discount rate is benefiting only about half of all students: those getting significant discounts off sticker (about 35% of students are still paying sticker, and another 15% or so are getting small discounts). The differences between what the two halves of the class pay to go to the same law school have often become enormous.

Anyway there's a real price war going on out there now.

Wasn't the original argument that federal aid needs to be reduced so that less people will go to law school -> more law schools will have to lower costs to get more students -> costs as a whole will go down when federal aid/subsidies go down?

So wouldn't this study really just prove that the federal aid isn't really affecting costs as much as people are arguing it is? I.e., that costs are going down even despite PSLF/federal loans/etc. (i.e., in all likelihood because students are starting to understand the degree to which the legal market is oversaturated, the lack of quality of the lowest-ranked school, and other factors independent from federal funds)?

let's subsidize government lawyers y'all!

Right, because most ADAs and PDs are earning $91k right off the bat.

[ballouttacontrol]

looks like that chart about jives with the BLS figure of median state govt attorney salary being 88k

so your argument boils down to PI lawyers are underpaid. got it.

maybe you should move to Ohio. You could live in a nice suburb with a 2000 sq ft house and a yard and easily make your loan payments with your well above average 70k salary

[Nebby]

And this subsidy can be outrageous. It's nearly 40k a year for people going to school now. That's a huge subsidy for PI/gov jobs.

Obama's 57k cap is pretty fair.

With PAYE, I think a cap of 57k would make PSLF useless. With a debt amount high enough (roughly 150k), you'd end up paying less in the long term with PAYE then you would be with making high enough monthly payments that you have 57k left over to forgive. I ran some numbers on https://studentloanhero.com/calculators ... alculator/ to arrive at 150k being the difference.

[cavalier1138]

because PDs are, sometimes, very low paid, and are something I'm familiar with. I also think there's a lot more government lawyers than legal aids. And government lawyers are probably the ones who most ppl have the biggest problem with getting a $30k+ per year subsidy when they already make 6 figs or close to it

If you get on board with no subsidies for govt lawyers, I'll get on board with legal aids living close to poverty getting some help

If you cite your sources for your bullshit salary numbers, I'll get on board with thinking that you might have a point. Even AUSAs don't pull six figures until they have years of experience (source).

Edit: Didn't see that you badly interpreted the data from the DLS. Median salary data for all attorneys doesn't account for experience and is a stupid substitute for data that is based on experience, since we're talking about attorneys who don't have a decade of experience.

[Nebby]

looks like that chart about jives with the BLS figure of median state govt attorney salary being 88k

so your argument boils down to PI lawyers are underpaid. got it.

maybe you should move to Ohio. You could live in a nice suburb with a 2000 sq ft house and a yard and easily make your loan payments with your well above average 70k salary

I'm not arguing that PI lawyers are underpaid. I'm arguing that PI lawyers are paid at a rate that makes average law debt unserviceable. That is why many choose to go into the private sector, and that is why many organizations report that they're unable to recruit and retain well-qualified candidates. (I provided evidence of this on the prior page and you've yet to rebut any of it).

I'm arguing that the government decided that PI lawyers provide a service of value (see the legislative history I posted) and opted to provide relief in the form of debt forgiveness in the form of a commitment to pursuing and maintaining employment in PI.

[ballouttacontrol]

because PDs are, sometimes, very low paid, and are something I'm familiar with. I also think there's a lot more government lawyers than legal aids. And government lawyers are probably the ones who most ppl have the biggest problem with getting a $30k+ per year subsidy when they already make 6 figs or close to it

If you get on board with no subsidies for govt lawyers, I'll get on board with legal aids living close to poverty getting some help

If you cite your sources for your bullshit salary numbers, I'll get on board with thinking that you might have a point. Even AUSAs don't pull six figures until they have years of experience (source).

umm scroll up on this page dude. Even per your source, it looks like with the locality adjustment AUSAs are making 6 figs or close at the very first level.

[Nebby]

because PDs are, sometimes, very low paid, and are something I'm familiar with. I also think there's a lot more government lawyers than legal aids. And government lawyers are probably the ones who most ppl have the biggest problem with getting a $30k+ per year subsidy when they already make 6 figs or close to it

If you get on board with no subsidies for govt lawyers, I'll get on board with legal aids living close to poverty getting some help

If you cite your sources for your bullshit salary numbers, I'll get on board with thinking that you might have a point. Even AUSAs don't pull six figures until they have years of experience (source).

Edit: Didn't see that you badly interpreted the data from the DLS. Median salary data for all attorneys doesn't account for experience and is a stupid substitute for data that is based on experience, since we're talking about attorneys who don't have a decade of experience.

This too. I am using data concerning the people who PSLF is directly targeted (one to ten years of experience). Linking to data that includes the salaries of attorneys with 40 years of experience is so absurd it might as well be trolling.

[cavalier1138]

because PDs are, sometimes, very low paid, and are something I'm familiar with. I also think there's a lot more government lawyers than legal aids. And government lawyers are probably the ones who most ppl have the biggest problem with getting a $30k+ per year subsidy when they already make 6 figs or close to it

If you get on board with no subsidies for govt lawyers, I'll get on board with legal aids living close to poverty getting some help

If you cite your sources for your bullshit salary numbers, I'll get on board with thinking that you might have a point. Even AUSAs don't pull six figures until they have years of experience (source).

umm scroll up on this page dude. Even per your source, it looks like with the locality adjustment AUSAs are making 6 figs or close at the very first level.

I edited the post to reflect your bad use of data. And learn to read, please. The provided charts already account for increased locality pay, and the medians reflect the median pay across localities. If you really want to use the richest districts as the benchmark, then more power to you, but that's a fucking idiotic way of viewing mass data.

[Nebby]

Now I remember why the name is familiar http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5#p8830335

[ballouttacontrol]

because PDs are, sometimes, very low paid, and are something I'm familiar with. I also think there's a lot more government lawyers than legal aids. And government lawyers are probably the ones who most ppl have the biggest problem with getting a $30k+ per year subsidy when they already make 6 figs or close to it

If you get on board with no subsidies for govt lawyers, I'll get on board with legal aids living close to poverty getting some help

If you cite your sources for your bullshit salary numbers, I'll get on board with thinking that you might have a point. Even AUSAs don't pull six figures until they have years of experience (source).

umm scroll up on this page dude. Even per your source, it looks like with the locality adjustment AUSAs are making 6 figs or close at the very first level.

I edited the post to reflect your bad use of data. And learn to read, please. The provided charts already account for increased locality pay, and the medians reflect the median pay across localities. If you really want to use the richest districts as the benchmark, then more power to you, but that's a fucking idiotic way of viewing mass data.

"The tables below do not include locality based comparability adjustments (locality pay). Total pay with locality for grades AD-21 through AD-37 is limited to $161,800 in 2017. See 2017 Locality Pay Table for locality pay rates."


Let's take the "Midpoint" from the chart, and add locality for, SAY, fucking Cleveland, you're 85k. that's pretty good money in my book and would put you in a pretty near top percentile

[runinthefront]

Now I remember why the name is familiar http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5#p8830335

pretty vindictive thing to do, Nebby.

This whole thread is pretty pointless

[Nebby]

because PDs are, sometimes, very low paid, and are something I'm familiar with. I also think there's a lot more government lawyers than legal aids. And government lawyers are probably the ones who most ppl have the biggest problem with getting a $30k+ per year subsidy when they already make 6 figs or close to it

If you get on board with no subsidies for govt lawyers, I'll get on board with legal aids living close to poverty getting some help

If you cite your sources for your bullshit salary numbers, I'll get on board with thinking that you might have a point. Even AUSAs don't pull six figures until they have years of experience (source).

umm scroll up on this page dude. Even per your source, it looks like with the locality adjustment AUSAs are making 6 figs or close at the very first level.

I edited the post to reflect your bad use of data. And learn to read, please. The provided charts already account for increased locality pay, and the medians reflect the median pay across localities. If you really want to use the richest districts as the benchmark, then more power to you, but that's a fucking idiotic way of viewing mass data.

"The tables below do not include locality based comparability adjustments (locality pay). Total pay with locality for grades AD-21 through AD-37 is limited to $161,800 in 2017. See 2017 Locality Pay Table for locality pay rates."


Let's take the "Midpoint" from the chart, and add locality for, SAY, fucking Cleveland, you're 85k. that's pretty good money in my book and would put you in a pretty near top percentile

Not everyone wants to live in Cleveland and there are relatively few PI attorney jobs in Cleveland. Furthermore, it's Cleveland.

[ballouttacontrol]

im out

[Nebby]

Now I remember why the name is familiar http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5#p8830335

pretty vindictive thing to do, Nebby.

This whole thread is pretty pointless

Absent ballouttacontrol's contributions I feel like this exercise has been someone productive, if only because it required me to actually find the support for Congress' original enactment so I could rebut in the future the argument that Congress only intended this to benefit teachers and firefighters.

[Johann]

why is everyone so jealous of the other people that arent them and their packages.

years ago when republicans were hooting and hollering about their tax dollars going to public universities, they stripped the hell out of state level funding so that these schools basically receive no state level funds. fine cool, you won the election go for it.

then when repubs lose the election, they wonder why its no longer enough for dems to just fund the school (that ship saild, the school alreayd raised costs to its consumers) leaving the dems with one and only one solution - providing loans to students to afford the costs.

so they did that. then nobody paid their loans back because what was the point without forgiveness and huge debt loads. the govt realized they were losing fistfuls of money and people were just defaulting they would never recoup for. so they came up with these payment plans to help people pay debt AND turn a profitable business. for the first several years, the govt turned a profit on these loans.

now the republicans are back in power and thinking of stripping the loans again because you are just jealous that some of your tax dollars go to this program and you think someone who makes 40k is overpaid when you make close to 500k. the end result will likely be what already happened - people will still get the NYU degree and just default on their loans if it doesn't make mathematical sense to pay it off. everybody will have crushing debt and public policy concern will be COMPLETE loan forgiveness. the next dem that will get in will just forgive or greatly reduce the trillion of student debt.

the only way you can win if you are a republican and you dont plan on winning every election for the rest of 20 years, is to come up with reasonable proposals to fund a public good (education) that youre outvoted on. its going to be funded one way or the other. do the math on what you think will cost more, but im pretty sure the model was best 40 years ago where there were good state schools that received lots of public funding.

just take your 2-5% tax break that will come during these years and stop worrying about/being jealous about your neighbor.

[nouseforaname123]

So why does it bother you that the government may now decide the benefits of PSLF are not worth the cost? If both the Trump and Obama admins are trying to materially cap the value of PSLF, it would seem to me that DOE is deciding there is a problem with the program on a non-ideological basis.

[nouseforaname123]

why is everyone so jealous of the other people that arent them and their packages.

years ago when republicans were hooting and hollering about their tax dollars going to public universities, they stripped the hell out of state level funding so that these schools basically receive no state level funds. fine cool, you won the election go for it.

then when repubs lose the election, they wonder why its no longer enough for dems to just fund the school (that ship saild, the school alreayd raised costs to its consumers) leaving the dems with one and only one solution - providing loans to students to afford the costs.

so they did that. then nobody paid their loans back because what was the point without forgiveness and huge debt loads. the govt realized they were losing fistfuls of money and people were just defaulting they would never recoup for. so they came up with these payment plans to help people pay debt AND turn a profitable business. for the first several years, the govt turned a profit on these loans.

now the republicans are back in power and thinking of stripping the loans again because you are just jealous that some of your tax dollars go to this program and you think someone who makes 40k is overpaid when you make close to 500k. the end result will likely be what already happened - people will still get the NYU degree and just default on their loans if it doesn't make mathematical sense to pay it off. everybody will have crushing debt and public policy concern will be COMPLETE loan forgiveness. the next dem that will get in will just forgive or greatly reduce the trillion of student debt.

the only way you can win if you are a republican and you dont plan on winning every election for the rest of 20 years, is to come up with reasonable proposals to fund a public good (education) that youre outvoted on. its going to be funded one way or the other. do the math on what you think will cost more, but im pretty sure the model was best 40 years ago where there were good state schools that received lots of public funding.

just take your 2-5% tax break that will come during these years and stop worrying about/being jealous about your neighbor.

Why do you assume this has to do with jealousy?

Here's the thing: if the government forgives Johnny Lawyer's $200k in school debt, that will result in the following combination in an amount that equals $200k: the government will borrow money, the government will have less money to spend on other needed programs and the government will raise taxes. This is a real problem when it isn't entirely clear that the government needed to forgive that debt in the first place. There is a problem with recruiting and retention in certain PSLF jobs. But that doesn't justify PSLF status for all current PSLF jobs.

[Npret]

I PMes him my email and he sent it to me. You can do the same. I don't want to distribute it without his permission.
Here is what he said in the thread:

Law school tuition is falling rapidly for about half of all students
Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:44 am

This is a FYI for current and prospective applicants. I just finished a study of changes in law school tuition between 2011 and 2015.

Bottom line: Although sticker tuition has gone up 16% during this time, effective tuition (tuition minus discounts) is down an average of 10.6% at all schools. This figure rises to 12.5% if you exclude elite schools, which collectively have raised tuition in real terms by 9%.

These are averages: at many schools outside the top 50, real tuition is down 20% or 30% or even 40% from 2011. (Note these are 2015 numbers as 2016 numbers on discounting won't be available until this fall). The complicating factor is that this massive increase in the discount rate is benefiting only about half of all students: those getting significant discounts off sticker (about 35% of students are still paying sticker, and another 15% or so are getting small discounts). The differences between what the two halves of the class pay to go to the same law school have often become enormous.

Anyway there's a real price war going on out there now.

Wasn't the original argument that federal aid needs to be reduced so that less people will go to law school -> more law schools will have to lower costs to get more students -> costs as a whole will go down when federal aid/subsidies go down?

So wouldn't this study really just prove that the federal aid isn't really affecting costs as much as people are arguing it is? I.e., that costs are going down even despite PSLF/federal loans/etc. (i.e., in all likelihood because students are starting to understand the degree to which the legal market is oversaturated, the lack of quality of the lowest-ranked school, and other factors independent from federal funds)?

let's subsidize government lawyers y'all!

Right, because most ADAs and PDs are earning $91k right off the bat.

Yes. It was posted in response to the point that law school tuition hasn't been dropping in the face of declining enrollment.
I'm probably missing your point or whatever but Campos' study seemed relevant to the discussion of increasing law school tuition. You can PM him to see the study if you want.

[Bluem_11]

While major discussion in these last 5 or so pages has been about public service, interesting to note as well that Dept of Edu wants to (and as I said previously there is some bipartisan support for this) reform IBR as well to eliminate IBR, PAYE, REPAYE, super REPAYE, IBR++ (I made a couple of these up but that's the point) to make payments at 12.5% for 15 years for undergrad and 30 years for grad i.e. law school starting for loans in 2018.

That has massive implications, especially when the forgiven dollars are taxed as income.

For example, for me, on my IBR plan, based on various assumptions of salary and my family/state, my 'tax hit' will be about $75,000 after my debt is forgiven in 20 years, but over 30 years it hits about $100,000 nvmd an extra 10 years of payments. I am not making adjustments for the different % of income, but it should end up being in roughly same ballpark.

This is doable assuming I stay healthy and employed well and save/invest as I've planned, but it's a noteworthy bump regardless.

[Nebby]

I think the real elephant in the room is the issue of grandfathering. I am an advocate of PSLF because I think it is a good way of addressing recruitment and retention of well-qualified candidates in public service/interest. But if the government was to decide it no longer values that, then it can get rid of it. I would disagree but understand.

What I would find reprehensible, however, is to not grandfather in those attorneys who made life-altering decision and relied upon the government's promise, upon loan origination, to forgive the subsequent debt if they worked for 10 years in qualifying employment. Some people who graduated in the late 2000s and early 2010s likely now have debt that has ballooned up to and over $400k due to compounding interest and paying IBR rates, which are not high enough to amortize the debt on a public interest salary. Pulling the rug out from their feet would be unconscionable, and we'd be right back where we started with millions of dollars in loans going into default with the added benefit of hundreds of thousands of people having their credit ruined for life.

[dixiecupdrinking]

I think the real elephant in the room is the issue of grandfathering. I am an advocate of PSLF because I think it is a good way of addressing recruitment and retention of well-qualified candidates in public service/interest. But if the government was to decide it no longer values that, then it can get rid of it. I would disagree but understand.

What I would find reprehensible, however, is to not grandfather in those attorneys who made life-altering decision and relied upon the government's promise, upon loan origination, to forgive the subsequent debt if they worked for 10 years in qualifying employment. Some people who graduated in the late 2000s and early 2010s likely now have debt that has ballooned up to and over $400k due to compounding interest and paying IBR rates, which are not high enough to amortize the debt on a public interest salary. Pulling the rug out from their feet would be unconscionable, and we'd be right back where we started with millions of dollars in loans going into default with the added benefit of hundreds of thousands of people having their credit ruined for life.

All of whom, by definition, work in some kind of role that at least ostensibly serves the public. Of all the people to fuck over.

[Anonymous User]

I am a government employee within the DOJ who has really taken advantage of the PSLF and PAYE system. I really hope they grandfather people into the program because I have been using PAYE and PSLF as a way to paying back as little amount as possible with the hope of forgiveness.

I paid $0 for the first two years of the program. Subsequent years have been based upon my tax returns, in which i have found every possible way to reduce my AGI (maxing retirement contributions etc). I make mid six figures now and i'm estimating i will pay back around 30k until forgiveness on 180k in loans at 6.8 interest. it is a great deal if you know how to utilize it correctly.

[Npret]

I am a government employee within the DOJ who has really taken advantage of the PSLF and PAYE system. I really hope they grandfather people into the program because I have been using PAYE and PSLF as a way to paying back as little amount as possible with the hope of forgiveness.

I paid $0 for the first two years of the program. Subsequent years have been based upon my tax returns, in which i have found every possible way to reduce my AGI (maxing retirement contributions etc). I make mid six figures now and i'm estimating i will pay back around 30k until forgiveness on 180k in loans at 6.8 interest. it is a great deal if you know how to utilize it correctly.

Do you mind posting estimate of your current balance and what it might be at forgiveness?