Home > Students > Should Your Student Loan Payments Be Withheld From Your Paycheck?

Comments 0 Comments

It’s the start of another new year — a time for reflection, resolutions and W-4 filings.

What if — along with the federal, state, local, Social Security and Medicare taxes that are automatically withheld from every payroll check — student-loan borrowers could also have their payments extracted from that as well?

That’s precisely what the New America Foundation, Young Invincibles and the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators are proposing in their recently published, thought-provoking report: The Case for Payroll Withholding — Preventing Student Loan Defaults with Automatic Income-Based Repayment.

As the report’s subtitle suggests, the authors are attempting to tackle the twin issues of student-loan payment delinquencies and defaults — which occur with greater frequency and in greater numbers than for any other form of consumer borrowing — with an innovative twist on the oft-proposed solution of income-based repayment: Loan payments would be calculated on and withheld from a borrower’s current paycheck.

The idea makes a lot of sense.

As the authors rightly point out, the present system is documentation-intensive (tax returns or other forms of income verification), repetitive (annually updated applications), manual (borrowers must remit their payments) and dated (calculations are based upon prior-year earnings). Consequently, whatever relief that is ultimately approved may not correspond with the borrower’s current financial circumstances.

Yet, as well-intentioned as this idea may be, it still doesn’t fully solve the problem.

For instance, take borrowers who are self-employed with sporadic earnings. How would their monthly payments be calculated and by whom? What about food servers who are often paid low-level salaries because of tips they may receive? And what about the employers? To what extent would a program that’s uncomfortably analogous to wage garnishment come with added fiduciary responsibilities?

If anything, the fact that there is so great a need for income-based repayment plans — more than half of all borrowers whose loans are in repayment are unable to comply with the original terms of their financing agreements — should make plain the fundamental problem that underlies this contentious issue: Education loans are improperly structured from the get-go.

Given the magnitude of average student borrowing (public and private education-related debts, including from the use of credit cards) versus the relatively low level of earnings during the first several years of post-college life, it’s no wonder that so many borrowers are struggling to meet the payment demands of the standard 10-year loan.

So instead of complicating matters with onesy-twosy, income-based repayment calculations that could very well result in term extensions to as long as 20 years, why not embrace the inevitable, bite the bullet and restructure the entire portfolio of student loans for a comparable duration to produce, roughly, the same result?

Creating a Manageable Loan

There are, however, two matters that require front-end attention.

Longer-term loans are always more costly for borrowers because principal amortization is slowed, and more interest is paid over time. That’s why it would be important for them to be contractually entitled to accelerate the repayment of their debts — in full or in part — at any time and without penalty. Doing so would accomplish three things: Borrowers would have the ability to limit their overall cost; the contractual prepayment provision would protect them against conflicting policies or practices (should the loans be sold to or serviced by others at a later date); and borrowers would have the luxury of falling back on the originally agreed-to lower payments should they encounter financial difficulties in the future.

As for the second matter, since we’re talking about the wholesale restructure of the entire student-loan portfolio, why not also address once and for all the manner in which interest rates are set?

Let’s start with the way the government funds its student loan program.

The reason the U.S. Department of Education’s earnings from this activity are so high is because the government is, in effect, “borrowing short and lending long.” In plain English, it’s funding higher-rate 10-year loans with lower-rate three-month money. As those of us who’ve lived on the lending side of the financial-services industry know from experience, the proper — and because interest rates can only go up at this point, less risky — way to finance these fixed-rate loans is with fixed-rate borrowings for terms that are roughly half the underlying loans’ duration.

Add to that truer funding cost a more precise value of the administrative expenses, the Education Department actually incurs to manage the loans it makes, and borrowers would be charged a fairer price than they are today.

Wider access to income-based repayment plans is a good idea for all the right reasons. But extending repayment terms, rationalizing interest rates and funding the program in a way that ensures its longer-term viability is a better one, that is if the goal is to serve more people with less hassle.

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily represent the views of the company or its affiliates.

More on Student Loans:

Image: iStock

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team