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.
What's new about the GOP student loan payment plan
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.
a $50 discount on their monthly student loan payment per child.
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
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
U.S. judge approves $2.8 billion settlement, paving way for colleges to pay athletes millions
A federal judge signed off on arguably the biggest change in the history of college sports Friday, clearing the way for schools to begin paying their athletes millions of dollars as soon as next month as the multibillion-dollar industry shreds the last vestiges of the amateur model that defined it for more than a century. Nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House sued the NCAA and its five biggest conferences to lift restrictions on revenue sharing, U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken approved the final proposal that had been hung up on roster limits, just one of many changes ahead amid concerns that thousands of walk-on athletes will lose their chance to play college sports. The sweeping terms of the so-called House settlement include approval for each school to share up to $20.5 million with athletes over the next year and $2.7 billion that will be paid over the next decade to thousands of former players who were barred from that revenue for years. The agreement brings a seismic shift to hundreds of schools that were forced to reckon with the reality that their players are the ones producing the billions in TV and other revenue, mostly through football and basketball, that keep this machine humming. The scope of the changes — some have already begun — is difficult to overstate. The professionalization of college athletics will be seen in the high-stakes and expensive recruitment of stars on their way to the NFL and NBA, and they will be felt by athletes whose schools have decided to pare their programs. The agreement will resonate in nearly every one of the NCAA's 1,100 member schools boasting nearly 500,000 athletes. The road to a settlement Wilken's ruling comes 11 years after she dealt the first significant blow to the NCAA ideal of amateurism when she ruled in favor of former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon and others who were seeking a way to earn money from the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL) — a term that is now as common in college sports as 'March Madness' or 'Roll Tide.' It was just four years ago that the NCAA cleared the way for NIL money to start flowing, but the changes coming are even bigger. Wilken granted preliminary approval to the settlement last October. That sent colleges scurrying to determine not only how they were going to afford the payments, but how to regulate an industry that also allows players to cut deals with third parties so long as they are deemed compliant by a newly formed enforcement group that will be run by auditors at Deloitte. The agreement takes a big chunk of oversight away from the NCAA and puts it in the hands of the four biggest conferences. The ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC hold most of the power and decision-making heft, especially when it comes to the College Football Playoff, which is the most significant financial driver in the industry and is not under the NCAA umbrella like the March Madness tournaments are. Roster limits held things up The deal looked ready to go since last fall, but Wilken put a halt to it after listening to a number of players who had lost their spots because of newly imposed roster limits being placed on teams. The limits were part of a trade-off that allowed the schools to offer scholarships to everyone on the roster, instead of only a fraction, as has been the case for decades. Schools started cutting walk-ons in anticipation of the deal being approved. Wilken asked for a solution and, after weeks, the parties decided to let anyone cut from a roster — now termed a 'Designated Student-Athlete' — return to their old school or play for a new one without counting against the new limit. Wilken ultimately agreed, going point-by-point through the objectors' arguments to explain why they didn't hold up. 'The modifications provide Designated Student-Athletes with what they had prior to the roster limits provisions being implemented, which was the opportunity to be on a roster at the discretion of a Division I school,' Wilken wrote Winners and losers The list of winners and losers is long and, in some cases, hard to tease out. A rough guide of winners would include football and basketball stars at the biggest schools, which will devote much of their bankroll to signing and retaining them. For instance, Michigan quarterback Bryce Underwood's NIL deal is reportedly worth between $10.5 million and $12 million. Losers, despite Wilken's ruling, figure to be at least some of the walk-ons and partial scholarship athletes whose spots are gone. Also in limbo are Olympic sports many of those athletes play and that serve as the main pipeline for a U.S. team that has won the most medals at every Olympics since the downfall of the Soviet Union. All this is a price worth paying, according to the attorneys who crafted the settlement and argue they delivered exactly what they were asked for: an attempt to put more money in the pockets of the players whose sweat and toil keep people watching from the start of football season through March Madness and the College World Series in June. What the settlement does not solve is the threat of further litigation. Though this deal brings some uniformity to the rules, states still have separate laws regarding how NIL can be doled out, which could lead to legal challenges. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been consistent in pushing for federal legislation that would put college sports under one rulebook and, if he has his way, provide some form of antitrust protection to prevent the new model from being disrupted again.
Daily Mirror
4 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Elon Musk's estranged dad wades in on Trump feud with brutal comment
Elon's fatherr, Errol Musk, believes that his son's feud with Trump resembles male 'animals fighting for dominance' - and Errol has now given his verdict on who will 'win' Elon Musk 's estranged father Errol has given his verdict on the feud between his son and Donald Trump. Once Trump's right hand man, Musk left his special government position as the Department of Government Efficiency - specially set up by the President for the Tesla CEO who seemed to be longing for a top job in Washington - a week ago. The fall out between Musk and Trump has gotten out of control in just a few days, spiralling into a series of petty online fights. Donald Trump appeared to dismiss the idea of a phone call with Elon Musk this morning after their feud exploded in spectacular fashion yesterday, with the Tesla owner tearing into the US President on X. The elder Musk told The Times of London Friday that his son's feud with Trump resembled male animals fighting for dominance - but since Trump is the president of the United States, he'll 'win this round.' The Tesla CEO's father said: "In any successful group of animals, whether gorillas, elephants or human beings, the dominant males will always fight for dominance. The problem you get with really good quality people is that the men all think they should be the general. "They will have to sort it out and because Trump is the one who was elected, Elon is going to have to accept he is not going to be the general." He added: "Trump has to put things in that budget to make the Democrats vote for it. Elon saw things he didn't like and spoke up, but that should be the end of it now. Trump isn't vengeful. He will win this round with Elon and not hold it against him. "A big person can forgive easily, only small people can't. Things have gone over the top, but this is the situation when alphas fight it out. I've told Elon he has said his part, but now he must allow things to calm down - and I hope he wil." The rift between Musk and Trump started following Musk's criticism of the GOP-endorsed "Big Beautiful Bill." The controversial budget bill, feared to drastically hike the national deficit, spurred Musk to sever ties with the Trump administration in dissent. But On Thursday, Musk took things to the next level by asserting that Trump features "in the Epstein files," igniting an already fiery dispute. He also suggested that Trump ought to be impeached, proposing 40 year old Vice President JD Vance as a successor. But On Thursday, Musk took things to the next level by asserting that Trump features "in the Epstein files," igniting an already fiery dispute. He also suggested that Trump ought to be impeached, proposing 40 year old Vice President JD Vance as a successor. Yesterday Donald Trump blasted former ally Elon Musk, claiming the billionaire is "the man who lost his mind." Mr Trump told US media he was not interested in speaking to the Tesla boss following their sensational fall out. During a press phone call on Friday morning, ABC News asked the Republican about a call he had planned with Mr Musk later in the day. Mr Trump then responded: "You mean the man who has lost his mind?" The US President said he was "not particularly" interested in talking to him at the moment. He claimed Mr Musk wanted to speak to him but that he was not ready to speak to the world's wealthiest man. Speaking to CNN's Dana Bash, Mr Trump said: "I'm not even thinking about Elon. He's got a problem. The poor guy's got a problem." The high-profile fall out marks a sensational point in the Trump-Musk political alignment, with the Tesla boss having donated considerable amounts to the Republicans during and after the 2024 Presidential Election
NBC News
5 hours ago
- NBC News
Supreme Court leaves District of Columbia gun restriction on large magazines in place
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday left in place a longstanding gun restriction in the District of Columbia that bans magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, opting once again to avoid taking up a new gun rights case. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority that generally favors gun rights, turned away a challenge to the Washington, D.C., law just a few days after rejecting an appeal over a similar law in Rhode Island. Then, the court also left in place Maryland's ban on assault-style weapons including the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. The court expanded gun rights in a major 2022 ruling that found for the first time that the right to bear arms under the Constitution's Second Amendment extends outside the home. But the court has since frustrated gun owners by declining to take up cases that would expand upon that ruling. The District of Columbia has long been a legal battleground over gun restrictions. The Supreme Court's landmark 2008 ruling that for the first time found that people have an individual right to bear arms in self defense in their homes arose from a challenge to a D.C. law. In the latest case, four gun owners challenged the restriction on large-capacity magazines that was enacted in the aftermath of the 2008 Supreme Court ruling, saying the restriction is unlawful under the later 2022 decision. Both a federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the law. The appeals court, in a 2-1 vote, said in a ruling last year that although large-capacity magazines are arms under the Second Amendment and have been in common use for years, they can be regulated because they are "particularly dangerous." Last summer, the Supreme Court sidestepped multiple gun-related disputes soon after it issued a ruling that upheld a federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. In other action on pending appeals Friday, the court decided against taking up a significant election case involving mail-in ballots in the battleground state of Pennsylvania that pitted Republicans against Democrats. The decision leaves intact a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that said voters who send mail-in ballots that are flagged as defective can then file a separate provision in-person ballot. The Republican National Committee was seeking to overturn the 2024 state court decision, while the Democratic National Committee was defending it.
