Biden's Latest Student Loan Scheme Has a Bigger Price Tag Than Originally Projected
The administration’s SAVE plan for student loan forgiveness is estimated to cost $475 billion.

With his original plan for writing off billions of dollars in student loans undone by the Supreme Court, President Biden has a more modest workaround in mind. But that scheme, based on adjustments to existing income-driven repayment plans, faces not only renewed legal challenges and a bureaucratic gauntlet on its way to implementation, but estimates that the ultimate price tag will be $475 billion—much higher than originally expected. In other words, be ready for an already spendthrift federal government to burden taxpayers with yet more debt.
"The Department of Education (Department) today will begin notifying more than 804,000 borrowers that they have a total of $39 billion in Federal student loans that will be automatically discharged in the coming weeks," the U.S. Department of Education announced last Friday. "In total, the Biden-Harris Administration has approved more than $116.6 billion in student loan forgiveness for more than 3.4 million borrowers."
"It's now the most generous repayment program ever," commented President Biden.
As Reason's Emma Camp noted when the plan was announced, "Under most IDR plans, borrowers pay a specific percentage of their income each month for a set number of years—usually 20 or 25 years—after which their remaining balance will be forgiven. Previously, payments were required to be on time and in full in order to count toward cancellation." With the Biden administration's "Saving on a Valuable Education" (SAVE)-branded changes, many borrowers will be considered to have satisfied the requirements for forgiveness according to a broader set of circumstances, including late or partial payments, during periods of forbearance and deferment, and because of economic hardship.
Hefty Price Tags
Writing off loans comes at a price. The broader original loan forgiveness plan was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost $400 billion, while the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model pegged it to cost at least $605 billion – with a warning that "total plan costs could exceed $1 trillion."
But the Supreme Court said that larger proposal abused the concept of discretion in applying existing law without seeking legislative changes through Congress. "The Secretary's plan has 'modified' the cited provisions only in the same sense that 'the French Revolution "modified" the status of the French nobility'—it has abolished them and supplanted them with a new regime entirely," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court's majority decision.
That leaves us with the Biden administration's consolation prize for those seeking debt forgiveness. While not as far-reaching as the first plan, it's still spendy.
A Modest-Ish Proposal
"We estimate SAVE will incur a net cost of $475 billion over the 10-year budget window," the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model announced this week. "About $200 billion of that cost will come from payment reduction for the $1.64 trillion in loans already outstanding in 2023. We estimate that about 53 percent of the current loan volume will move to SAVE after it goes active in July 2024, implying that about $869 billion will be subject to enhanced subsidies under SAVE. The remainder of the budget cost, or about $275 billion, comes from reduced payments for about $1.03 trillion in new loans that we estimate will be extended over the next 10 years."
An earlier estimate by Penn Wharton had put the cost of Biden's income-driven repayment plans at "between $333 to $361 billion over the 10-year budget window." The higher new cost estimate takes into account the administration's final regulations, which were published on July 10.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in March that the "new income-driven repayment plan would increase the government's costs for federal student loans originated through 2033 by $230 billion." But that estimate also predated the publication of SAVE's final regulations. The CBO has yet to update its estimate for the plan's costs.
A Deep Sea of Red Ink
A price tag of $475 billion is less than the $605 billion projected for the scheme rejected by the Supreme Court, let alone the trillion-dollar-plus worst-case scenario envisioned by Penn Wharton, but it's a hefty chunk of change for a government that, year after year, spends well beyond its means. The latest U.S. Treasury Department Monthly Treasury Statement shows that the federal government borrowed almost $1.4 trillion in the nine months since Fiscal Year 2023 began last October. That's more than was borrowed in all of Fiscal Year 2022, though that year's red ink was also quite impressive.
Officially, total U.S. national debt is now $32.54 trillion.
"Our debt addiction of more than $5 billion per day will be hard to come down from, but it is vital that we do so for both current and future generations," comments Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "As of this month, we've now spent more on interest on the debt than we did for the entire previous fiscal year, and we are projected to spend more on interest payments in the next decade than we will on the entire defense budget. We're on track to have interest be the single largest line item in the budget by 2051 – larger than our two current biggest programs, Social Security and Medicare."
In the context of such overwhelming debts and deficits, it might be tempting to ask, what's another $475 billion among fellow countrymen who don't like each other very much? But that's not how we dig ourselves out of this hole. In May, during the debt ceiling debate (remember that?), I tried my hands at a few online tools that let Americans make decisions for balancing the federal budget. The tools varied in assumptions and overall quality, but (spoiler alert!) no approaches for eliminating red ink involved multi-hundred-billion-dollar giveaways.
The SAVE plan and its associated costs aren't yet fixed in stone. Among other considerations, it's likely to face a new round of lawsuits from people concerned that the administration is yet again making expensive policy decisions without seeking congressional approval. However, the financially less-ambitious scheme is also not as creative in its legal gymnastics as the original proposal and may not be so vulnerable to challenge.
So, the estimated $475 billion price may stand as an addition to the federal government's already excessive financial undertakings. It's a generous proposal, all right, not just in terms of taxpayer money, but also in the burden it places on the country's shaky financial future.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Dementia Joe is awful. It's nice to be able to say I didn't vote for him. 🙂
Unfortunately there are a bunch of Koch-funded libertarians who cannot say that.
I earn 200 dollars per hour working from home on an online job. I never thought I could accomplish it, but my best friend makes $10,000 per month doing this profession and that I learn more about it.
Here’s how she did it…………… https://Www.Coins71.Com
My last paycheck was $8750 just ecom working 12 hours every week. My neighbor has found the estimation of $15k for a long time and she works around 20 hours for seven days. I can not trust how to direct it was once I tried it information..
Visit this website......... http://Www.Smartwork1.com
Boehm reluctantly asked if I had read his last article. My response was, “I sure hope so.”
Throw the Boehm out, I say.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,900 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,900 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
Gotta buy those votes somehow.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
Yeah the whole student loan forgiveness thing is more or less a vote-buying scheme for Team Blue.
Not sure how well it's going to work though. The college educated crowd is already likely to vote for Team Blue even without the loan forgiveness. And the negative reaction to the program can generate votes in opposition from those who wouldn't otherwise vote, from people who think it's unfair that college graduates get their loans paid off when they had to pay theirs off the 'right' way. I wonder what the net result will be in terms of votes. I wouldn't be surprised if it is a net loss for Team Blue.
My concern is that, unless forgiveness directly and adversely affects your average voter's pocketbook, this fleecing won't move the needle.
"more or less"? It's absolutely nothing but a vote-buying scheme.
FJB
When will ANYBODY in the press call out his violation of the Constitution?
Reason will eventually but, even then, it will be in the vein of "The President shouldn't be violating The Constitution but, at the same time, Congress does need to recognize that, for some people, especially DREAMers/immigrants without any means, paying off loans is hard."
I may have the specific details a little fuzzy, but it most assuredly will not be, "The President shouldn't be violating The Constitution because liberty means me keeping my money and taking care of my shit and you taking care of yours." Reason is all about defending the fundamental rights of free-roaming, radioactively hot messes to be both free-roaming and radioactive.
Fuck Joe Biden
Is there anything that the third-party-payer system can't fuck up?
Rewarding idiots for getting useless degrees at the expense of taxpayers.
And a big "fuck you" to people who chose not to take on debt for college education, or who made sacrifices to avoid loans or pay them off early.
Whine some more.
Fuck off, slaver.
^ This
You kiss your mum with that mouth? Probably with tongue.
Eat shit and die, asshole.
Another example of fine parenting.
Kill yourself.
(And let's hope that like most leftists you are emotionally fragile and might actually do it.)
Nice comment. Your mom raised you well.
I’m libertarian. I don’t agree with loan forgiveness, but “libertarians” constantly whining about student loan forgiveness is puerile. The shouts to “pay it!” are essentially calls for debt slavery.
Like all other types of debt, student loans should be able to be discharged in bankruptcy. Degree verification should be revoked, transcripts purged, and universities penalized with bankruptcy rankings. Ending predatory federal student loan debt slave scheme is necessary, but unlikely.
My friends in the trucking industry are all delighted to be paying taxes to help out those poor folks who went to Harvard.
But if they weren't mature enough to take on the debt, they're not mature enough to vote either. So sure, cancel the debts, but don't let them have a voice in how anything is run, either. They're clearly bad at it.
Oh, you mean your friends who are the beneficiaries of the Biden-Harris Administration Trucking Action Plan? Who cause 99% of wear-and-tear on US roads, but only pay for 35% of the maintenance? Who cause extra congestion and pollution? Who impose up to $128 billion in costs on society each year?
See. Anyone can play this game. It's a losing game. Jefferson called it bellum omnium contra omnes: the war of all against all.
You are on the take. I am on the take. EVERYONE is on the take. So stop your fucking whining.
On the other hand the government created this mess by guaranteeing that colleges would get paid no matter what they teach, creating perverse incentives to offer useless majors and create a bloated bureaucracy. Not saying it justifies loan forgiveness, though I would consider supporting such a scheme if it included government getting out of the loan business forever.
I could probably get behind that. Especially if the schools are on the hook for at least some of it.
Also throw in colleges having to eat some of the debt as well.
Colleges ought to eat _all_ of the cost of failed students, what other motive for improvement (or market signal for business failure) do they have?
Initially, no. The colleges were just responding to incentives. However if the government got out of the student loan business, and those loans were instead issued by banks and colleges, then they'd have an incentive to make sure that students had the skills to get through the program and choose a program that would get them a job.
As economists like to say "incentive matter."
The dollar amounts are certainly high enough to qualify as a “major” spending decision, so even if the administration is “less creative” about it’s justification than before, it is still going to have to deal with the fact that the spending is not authorized by Congress.
And before my Republican friends crow yet again about how awful the Obama and now Biden administrations have been with their “pen and a phone” tactics, Trump is explicitly promising to exert even more control. The “unitary executive” theory of governance is a poison dart aimed straight at the heart of federalism and the balance of powers doctrine.
And frankly, as much as I fear the Uniparty's misuse of the executive office, I fear a populist such as Trump much more. A populist administration just about guarantees emotion-driven policies.
The people I'm paying attention to these days are those who are describing how they will right-size the administrative state. At the moment, I think Ramaswamy has the best proposals. DeSantis, I'm not sure he would go far enough. You can't play around the edges with this issue.
So nothing to see here and Trump is the boogeyman?
No, not “nothing to see here”, what’s going to happen is the Biden administration will lose once again in court. The Supreme Court has already ruled on the principle that major decisions do not earn a presumption of legality. All it will take is for a lower court to find that half a trillion dollars in spending is a big decision, and whoop, there it goes.
And yes, Trump is the Boogeyman. Can’t believe there are still people who support that guy. If indeed, there are such people. I think they support the "idea" of Trump, but not the man himself. YMMV
In an article about Biden gifting hundreds of billions of borrowed/printed dollars, it seems strange to spend time on Trump. He isn’t in office and he’s not the executive behind this, Biden is. You do you.
Especially given that, as was pointed out at Reason, federal student loans and income-based repayment were all started under Reagan, continued to Bush, and Obama, and Trump between continued the trend and just did nothing to stop it.
You have to be some kind of nutjob to pretend that the problem in any way originated with Trump or that he was somehow exceptional or instrumental in getting us to where we are now. And I don't mean the "I secretly make dioramas out of roadkill." kind of nutjob, I mean the obvious, shouting to the world on the public square that is the internet, "I'm Abraham Lincoln!" kind of nutjob.
Stuff your TDS up your ass so your head has some company, and then fuck off and die, asshole,
The only thing I've heard Trump talk about taking a much firmer direct hand with is administration of the executive branch, as would be his rightful authority as the President. What are you referring to?
All these efforts to save people from their own poor decision making...just leads to more poor decision making.
To wit:
However, a new working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research indicates that borrowers whose loans were frozen by the moratorium actually ended up in a worse position than they started in—and have even accrued more student loan debt.
In March 2020, the Trump administration announced a moratorium on federal student loan payments for 60 days, citing the financial hardship faced by borrowers in the early days of the pandemic. In the three years since, the pause has been extended eight times with a variety of legal justifications. Payments are still currently paused, though the recently signed debt ceiling bill sets a hard expiration date for the moratorium on August 30.
The total cost of the pause is estimated to be as high as $5 billion per month, or almost $200 billion by the time repayment starts in September. And all that spending might not have even helped those whom the moratorium was supposed to benefit. According to the paper, those whose loans were frozen by the moratorium actually took on more debt—borrowing more on credit cards and mortgages and even accruing more student loan debt rather than working to pay off other debt they owe.
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
And of course this entire debate misses the root problem, which is students studying useless majors. If colleges or banks gave out the loans without the government guaranteeing that they'll be paid back, they'd laugh at people who wanted to major in Gender Studies and other feelgood nonsense. After all, the lender would want to be paid back. So they wouldn't loan money to dumbasses who want to study useless shit.
Instead the colleges know they're going to get paid, so they hire useless administrators and useless professors teaching useless degrees.
Then nobody can figure out why all these graduates are working at Starbucks.
I agree choosing bad majors is a problem, but I wouldn’t identify it as the root problem. The root problem is that the government has taken over student loans.
The government can’t even run its own affairs properly, why anyone would think it could do a good job running anything in the private sector is beyond me. If the government ran a lemonade stand, each cup would cost $1,000, you'd have to file reports with 10 different agencies, and the customer would be required to sign an Affidavit and file a tax form just to take a sip.
I agree choosing bad majors is a problem, but I wouldn’t identify it as the root problem. The root problem is that the government has taken over student loans.
Bad majors wouldn't be a problem if the government didn't guarantee the loans. I believe we are in agreement.
No, the root problem is droolin' Joe, and TDS-addled shits like you.
Fuck off and die,
Sarcasmic is right here. If you could make lots of money, no matter how terrible the product is, you'd have zero reason to improve anything.
Colleges have zero skin in the game. They need to have a lot more skin in the game.
Well, I choose to be an optimist and say that there is no such thing as a "useless major", only majors that are more difficult to monetize than others. All education though has intrinsic value, in that it represents the expansion of human knowledge.
College is, or at least ought to be, more than just preparing students for the workforce. It ought to be about preparing students to be well-rounded informed critical thinkers capable of accepting the responsibilities and obligations of citizenship in modern society. And you can't really do that if the education focuses only on the subjects that will make money in the marketplace.
Well, I choose to be an optimist and say that there is no such thing as a “useless major”, only majors that are more difficult to monetize than others. All education though has intrinsic value, in that it represents the expansion of human knowledge.
Useless in this context means "unable to monetize." Leave the "expansion of human knowledge" to the independently wealthy who can afford to pay for education without any expectation of monetary return.
Or who want to fund scholarships for particular fields.
Upon further reflection, honestly, there is just so much wrong with the entire education system.
A lot of what is now considered "general education" in college ought to be in highschool. That is really where the preparation for citizenship ought to be. Whatever a college's general education requirement is, should be more advanced and build upon that, and perhaps smaller in size since the highschools do a better job than what they are currently doing now, and so you don't need "Freshman Comp 101" in college since it should be de rigeur that incoming freshmen in college already know how to write composition papers.
I firmly believe that every major is monetizable, just some require more creative thought than others on how to do so. Colleges do need to do a better job with those students who choose one of these majors that are more difficult to monetize, on brainstorming the creative ways to monetize that degree, instead of just throwing them into the world with the degree with no plan on what to do with it.
I also don't want to see fields of study lost because they are not currently valued in the marketplace. That bothers me a little bit.
I firmly believe that every major is monetizable, just some require more creative thought than others on how to do so.
I also don’t want to see fields of study lost because they are not currently valued in the marketplace.
Don't those statements contradict each other? After all "monetizable" and "valued in the marketplace" mean the same thing, don't they?
Don’t those statements contradict each other? After all “monetizable” and “valued in the marketplace” mean the same thing, don’t they?
The mere fact that college graduates, who should nominally make more than non-college grads over their course of their career, are demanding a debt jubilee is proof enough that most majors aren't worth the return on investment anymore. The other talking point I've seen parroted as a "concession" is that something needs to be done about "predatory" loan rates, as if a 7-8 percent rate is usurious. The same people whining about student loan rates seem to have no problem plunking down thousands in credit card debt at 25% interest, or they took out far more student loan debt than they needed because they saw it as "free money" or "good debt," and used it for vacations and bullshit consumer purchases instead of school.
It's notable that student loan debt seemed to really explode after the implementation of income-based repayment. These payments don't actually pay down the balance like actually paying the minimum will, and a lot of people took advantage of it not because they couldn't afford the minimum, but just because they didn't want to. Ten years later, they notice their balance has actually ballooned, and they think it's because of the rates rather than the fact they deliberately chose to pay less than what was needed to cut the balance down over the term of the repayment period in their promissory note.
I'd question what interest rate they'd feel as fair for a loan with a damned good chance the borrower will have no chance to pay off.
Allow students to be DENIED loans.
Well, that's how we ended up with the government handing out student loans to anyone who asked. Because private lenders were denying student loans.
"I also don’t want to see fields of study lost because they are not currently valued in the marketplace. That bothers me a little bit."
how very libertarian of you
I can't read whomever's behind the gray box, but the quote is hilarious.
Keep (government-funded) phrenology degrees available! If not for the marginal utility in the slave trade then for their intrinsic scientific and social/cultural value!
Fine, just don't make all the taxpayers subsidize those hard-to-monetize majors.
It's like saying "Everyone can make art, it's just that some art is hard to monetize. I'd hate to see that art lost because it is not currently valued in the marketplace." SO LET'S SUBSIDIZE IT!
I guarantee no one wants to buy my paintings or read my poetry, heck probably no one wants to read this comment, let alone be forced to subsidize my efforts. Nor should they be forced to.
Suns rise in east, etc.
Hey, Tuccille! Tell us again about how much you hate Trump.
$475 billion / 120M working citizens = ONLY $3,958/ea.
What another $4K of your labors stolen by armed-theft?
Shouldn't be long before all people just give up on trying to *EARN* a living and just resort to gov-gun "armed-theft" and when that happens we'll all just kill and eat each other in our zero-sum resources environment. Like the ideology of Demonrats has taught the us all to do. F'En self-entitled criminals who belong in jail not holding the nations monopoly of gun-force.
Congress need to grow a set of balls and take back control of finances. The President does not have the right to just spend our money on his pet projects. Congress controls spending, period.
Here is my new proposal- we accept people getting their student loans cancelled. In return, they accept that they are not adults, since adults are responsible for their debts; that means they cannot vote (and we can talk about what other limitations they have because they aren't adults).
Careful, all of us are paying federal debts that our parents accrued. Even if we didn't consent to accruing them, there's a rather obvious risk that dickbags who don't care what The Constitution says give zero shits with regard to fair and equitable treatment more broadly.
Remember, canceling student loan debt is only superficially about buying votes. Dig deeper and see the incestuous but strategic alliance between the Democratic Party and the higher ed establishment. Neither would exist as they do in the 21st century with dedicated reinforcing exchanges of favoritism and money.
Yeah, this is basically just a bailout for the feckless upper middle class so the colleges don't have to worry about keeping tuition rates lower.
Ultimately, though, this is still a supply and demand issue. College wouldn't cost so much if our society hadn't spent the last several decades trying to democratize it so that everyone could get in and join the "elite." I'll give Matthew Yglesias some credit here for acknowledging that a naturally exclusionary institution like a university can't function as an elite status marker anymore if it just lets anyone in regardless of their ability to succeed there.
You're not wrong, but the subsidies haven't helped the cost either.
snore. pan et circenses.
"It's now the most generous repayment program ever," commented President Biden.
Nothing better articulates the essence of progressive benevolence and egalitarianism than unconstitutionally spending other peoples’ money and taking the thanks/votes for it.
Why I've said muggers are better people than politicians. Muggers do not expect you to thank them for robbing you.
What did these students do to deserve debt forgiveness?
Vote Democrat.
I recently had the opportunity to use Vive Financial Cash Services, and I must say, the experience was exceptional. From the moment I accessed their website, I was impressed by the user-friendly interface and the seamless navigation, visit https://vive-financial.pissedconsumer.com/review.html for more reviews. The "Vive Financial" truly lived up to its reputation, as the entire process was efficient and hassle-free. The prompt and reliable service provided by Vive Financial Cash Services left me feeling confident and satisfied with my financial transactions. I highly recommend their services to anyone in need of a trustworthy and convenient cash solution.
I've written before about the luxury amenities that are common around college campuses of late, and the relationship they have to lottery-funded "scholarships" and easy access to government-backed student loans, and the perverse incentives these scholarships and loans create.
WSJ: Welcome to the Era of the $10,000 Designer Dorm Room
College students hungry for comfort and TikTok acclaim are pouring extra creativity into decorating their living spaces
And we had to "forgive" student loans...because they were too oppressive...
Administrative bloat in higher education has gotten so bad over the last three decades that many universities now employ more administrators than professors. But the problem at Yale University is even more serious than that: Yale has more administrators than undergraduate students. According to the Yale Daily News:
Over the last two decades, the number of managerial and professional staff that Yale employs has risen three times faster than the undergraduate student body, according to University financial reports. The group's 44.7 percent expansion since 2003 has had detrimental effects on faculty, students and tuition, according to eight faculty members.
As evidenced by the financial report from 2002-2003, Yale employed 3,500 administrators and managers while there were 5,307 undergraduate students enrolled at the university. Less than two decades later in 2019, before the pandemic affected enrollment, Yale employed more than 1,500 additional administrators while the undergraduate population had only risen by 600 students. Now undergraduate enrollment has dipped to 4,703, with more than 5,000 “managerial and professional staff.”
Meanwhile, professor of English Leslie Brisman made light of the situation, remarking, “I think we don’t yet have a Vice President for the rights of the left-handed, but I haven’t checked this month,”
Wrote about the luxury student housing and how it seems easy access to scholarship and student loan money was driving excess...
If someone lives this lifestyle for 4+ years in college, then come to taxpayers demanding that their student loans get dismissed, I'm one hopping mad guy!
Ad for student apartments:
College life isn’t all about the books, it’s about living. When class is over, it’s YOU time! Take your paddleboard down to the lake for a serene workout. Meet on the boardwalk for ice cream and a study session. Or enjoy the afternoon relaxing by the pool with your bestie. We’ve got it all – on the lake.
Residents of Dockside will enjoy living in a great location. Our community is located mere minutes away from campus, whether you are traveling by car, bike, or catching the shuttle, you will always make it on time! And YES we’re pet friendly.
Public green space with outdoor games
Resort-style pool with cabanas, sun shelf, and splash pad
Performance stage for live music
Lakefront boardwalk with twelve-slip boat dock
Ground-floor retail and restaurants
State-of-the-art fitness center with virtual training and yoga studio
Outdoor kitchen, grills, and dining areas
Landscaped courtyards with seating, arbors, and outdoor TV’s
Study facilities including 12 private/group study rooms + 2 common study areas
Package system hub
Coffee bar
Tanning beds
Game room
Giant Adirondack chairs
Secure bike storage
Onsite dog walking areas
Cozy outdoor hammocks
24-hour emergency maintenance
Parking garage with plenty of space
Climate controlled corridors
Controlled access gates and buildings
Electronic unit access
Valet trash
Electric vehicle charging stations
Another luxe student lifestyle...
Welcome home to The Knox Apartments! Featuring contemporary apartments near UTK filled with everything residents need, an immersive, vibrant community complete with plenty of resort-style community amenities, and an unbeatable location just steps away from the heart of campus, every aspect of our off campus community is built with college students in mind. Volunteers can live in luxury when they call our Knoxville apartments home. Discover the college experience of your dreams with us! We look forward to being a part of your journey!
Our UTK off campus housing community is so much more than just a place to live. Our vibrant, modern community offers residents full access to resort-style amenities catered to meet the needs of all our residents, so they can have a successful college experience. From our lavish resident clubhouse with spaces for work and play to our outdoor recreation space outfitted with hot tubs, hammocks, an open-space theater, and so much more! You’ll love living here!
Community Amenities
The Deck
Hot Tubs
Open-Air Theater
Grilling Areas
Hammocks
Pet-Friendly
Dog Park
Resident Clubhouse
Big-Screen TVs
Pool Tables
Individual Study Rooms
Gated, Covered Parking Garage
24-Hour, Cutting-Edge Fitness Center
Media Cafe Computer Center
Coffee Bar
Community-Wide Internet
Apartment Features
Fully Furnished Apartments
High-Speed Internet, Cable & Trash Included
Individual Bedrooms
Private Bathrooms With Granite Countertops
Roommate-Matching Services
In-Unit Washer & Dryer
42-Inch Flat-Screen TV
Stainless Steel Appliances
Modern Kitchen With Granite Countertops
Spacious Closets In Each Bedroom
Individually Locked Bedrooms
Wood-Style Floors
Ceiling Fans In Each Room
About 92% of all student debt are federal student loans. That damn predatory lender swindling all these poor college kids.
$28,950 owed per borrower on average.
About the same as a lower-tier new car, which I'm certain a large chunk of student loan borrowers will run out to borrow money for if their student loans are forgiven.
But student loans are *soooo* burdensome...
Since American won't vote for anyone except Republicans or Democrats nothing really responsible will happen. It seems impossible to separate big money from politicians so what is the answer to fix this insanity?
I just received a letter from my loan servicer after I tried to report that my income had gone up this year (which would mean my monthly student loan payment should go up).
"We apologize but we are unable to grant your request for the following reason(s): It was unclear whether your request was intended for us to recalculate the monthly payment amount for the
income-driven repayment plan you are on. Based on the reduction in your family size and/or an increase in income, your payment amount will increase. Please contact us if you would like us to continue processing your request as a recalculation."
So basically, they are denying requests to accurately report income information by default if it means your payment will go up. This federal program is actively choosing to use incorrect information rather than correct information to save borrowers money. Imagine if the IRS did this. "Oh, your income went up this year? Let's just base your tax bill on last year's income instead."