2 million people could have their salaries garnished by the government this summer over student loans
Two million people could see their wages garnished this summer, TransUnion predicts. That's 800,000 more than it predicted last month. The collection enforcement is likely to put a further strain on the economy and comes as the Trump administration reverses Biden-era loan forgiveness programs.
While the economy is still on shaky ground and the shadow of tariff-caused price increase continues to loom, nearly 2 million Americans could see their paychecks garnished by the government this summer.
A TransUnion study suggest that many borrowers with federal student loans could see their accounts cross 270 days past due this July, putting them in default. That would open up the possibility of garnishment, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.
Just last month, the estimated number was 1.2 million.
It could be much worse by the end of summer, also. TransUnion, the Journal reports, estimates another 1 million borrowers could default by August, followed by another 2 million in September. (Not all of those people will reach that state, as some are in the process of working out deals with their lenders.)
The Education Department, which began debt collection on defaulted loans last month, has warned that wage garnishment on loans in default will begin once more this summer after a five-year pause. That could automatically deduct 15% of the paychecks of people who have overdue student loans. Federal officials have already warned people who have nor or are unable to make payments that, starting this month, they could see their tax refunds and any federal benefits withheld.
Prior to this, the government has not collected on defaulted loans since March 2020. In that time, borrowers have seen policy changes, inaccurate payment information, and unfulfilled promises of loan forgiveness. Many are also seeing their payments spike and their credit scores crater.
The Federal Reserve has said that more than 9 million borrowers 'will face significant drops in credit score once delinquencies appear on credit reports in the first half of 2025.'
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Four Days Left Until ecotel communication ag (ETR:E4C) Trades Ex-Dividend
Regular readers will know that we love our dividends at Simply Wall St, which is why it's exciting to see ecotel communication ag (ETR:E4C) is about to trade ex-dividend in the next four days. The ex-dividend date is usually set to be two business days before the record date, which is the cut-off date on which you must be present on the company's books as a shareholder in order to receive the dividend. The ex-dividend date is important because any transaction on a stock needs to have been settled before the record date in order to be eligible for a dividend. This means that investors who purchase ecotel communication ag's shares on or after the 30th of June will not receive the dividend, which will be paid on the 2nd of July. The company's upcoming dividend is €0.29 a share, following on from the last 12 months, when the company distributed a total of €0.29 per share to shareholders. Calculating the last year's worth of payments shows that ecotel communication ag has a trailing yield of 2.2% on the current share price of €12.90. Dividends are an important source of income to many shareholders, but the health of the business is crucial to maintaining those dividends. So we need to check whether the dividend payments are covered, and if earnings are growing. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. Dividends are usually paid out of company profits, so if a company pays out more than it earned then its dividend is usually at greater risk of being cut. ecotel communication ag is paying out an acceptable 51% of its profit, a common payout level among most companies. Yet cash flow is typically more important than profit for assessing dividend sustainability, so we should always check if the company generated enough cash to afford its dividend. ecotel communication ag paid a dividend despite reporting negative free cash flow last year. That's typically a bad combination and - if this were more than a one-off - not sustainable. View our latest analysis for ecotel communication ag Click here to see how much of its profit ecotel communication ag paid out over the last 12 months. Stocks in companies that generate sustainable earnings growth often make the best dividend prospects, as it is easier to lift the dividend when earnings are rising. If business enters a downturn and the dividend is cut, the company could see its value fall precipitously. For this reason, we're glad to see ecotel communication ag's earnings per share have risen 20% per annum over the last five years. Many investors will assess a company's dividend performance by evaluating how much the dividend payments have changed over time. ecotel communication ag has delivered an average of 6.1% per year annual increase in its dividend, based on the past 10 years of dividend payments. We're glad to see dividends rising alongside earnings over a number of years, which may be a sign the company intends to share the growth with shareholders. From a dividend perspective, should investors buy or avoid ecotel communication ag? Earnings per share growth is a positive, and the company's payout ratio looks normal. However, we note ecotel communication ag paid out a much higher percentage of its free cash flow, which makes us uncomfortable. Overall we're not hugely bearish on the stock, but there are likely better dividend investments out there. If you're not too concerned about ecotel communication ag's ability to pay dividends, you should still be mindful of some of the other risks that this business faces. For example, we've found 3 warning signs for ecotel communication ag (1 doesn't sit too well with us!) that deserve your attention before investing in the shares. If you're in the market for strong dividend payers, we recommend checking our selection of top dividend stocks. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Bloomberg
23 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Enters Fraught Two-Week Run as Tax, Trade Deadlines Loom
Donald Trump's frenzied second term enters a crucial stretch in the coming weeks as the president juggles a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Iran, a discordant party that he needs to pass his top legislative priority and a global economy on tenterhooks awaiting his next move on tariffs. Trump is up against a self-imposed July 4 target to pass his tax and spending bill, and he's two weeks out from the July 9 expiration of the global tariff pause that concussed the economy in April when he first introduced a raft of levies.
23 minutes ago
Lawsuit challenges billions of dollars in Trump administration funding cuts
BOSTON -- Attorneys general from more than 20 states and Washington, D.C. filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging billions of dollars in funding cuts made by the Trump administration that would fund everything from crime prevention to food security to scientific research. The lawsuit filed in Boston is asking a judge to limit the Trump administration from relying on an obscure clause in the federal regulation to cut grants that don't align with its priorities. Since January, the lawsuit argues that the administration has used that clause to cancel entire programs and thousands of grants that had been previously awarded to states and grantees. 'Defendants' decision to invoke the Clause to terminate grants based on changed agency priorities is unlawful several times over,' the plaintiffs argued. 'The rulemaking history of the Clause makes plain that the (Office of Management and Budget) intended for the Clause to permit terminations in only limited circumstances and provides no support for a broad power to terminate grants on a whim based on newly identified agency priorities.' The lawsuit argues the Trump administration has used the clause for the basis of a 'slash-and-burn campaign' to cut federal grants. 'Defendants have terminated thousands of grant awards made to Plaintiffs, pulling the rug out from under the States, and taking away critical federal funding on which States and their residents rely for essential programs,' the lawsuit added. The White House's Office of Management and Budget did not immediately respond to a request made Tuesday afternoon for comment. Rhode Island Attorney General Neronha said this lawsuit was just one of several the coalition of mostly Democratic states have filed over funding cuts. For the most part, they have largely succeeded in a string of legal victories to temporarily halt cuts. This one, though, may be the broadest challenge to those funding cuts. 'It's no secret that this President has gone to great lengths to intercept federal funding to the states, but what may be lesser known is how the Trump Administration is attempting to justify their unlawful actions,' Neronha said in a statement. 'Nearly every lawsuit this coalition of Democratic attorneys general has filed against the Administration is related to its unlawful and flagrant attempts to rob Americans of basic programs and services upon which they rely. Most often, this comes in the form of illegal federal funding cuts, which the Administration attempts to justify via a so-called 'agency priorities clause." Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said the lawsuit aimed to stop funding cuts he described as indiscriminate and illegal. 'There is no 'because I don't like you' or 'because I don't feel like it anymore' defunding clause in federal law that allows the President to bypass Congress on a whim," Tong said in a statement. 'Since his first minutes in office, Trump has unilaterally defunded our police, our schools, our healthcare, and more. He can't do that, and that's why over and over again we have blocked him in court and won back our funding.' In Massachusetts, Attorney General Andrea Campbell said the U.S. Department of Agriculture terminated a $11 million agreement with the state Department of Agricultural Resources connecting hundreds of farmers to hundreds of food distribution sites while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency terminated a $1 million grant to the state Department of Public Health to reduce asthma triggers in low-income communities. 'We cannot stand idly by while this President continues to launch unprecedented, unlawful attacks on Massachusetts' residents, institutions, and economy,' Campbell said in a statement. The lawsuit argues that the OMB promulgated the use of the clause in question to justify the cuts. The clause in question, according to the lawsuit, refers to five words that say federal agents can terminate grants if the award "no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.' 'The Trump Administration has claimed that five words in this Clause—'no longer effectuates . . . agency priorities'—provide federal agencies with virtually unfettered authority to withhold federal funding any time they no longer wish to support the programs for which Congress has appropriated funding,' the lawsuit said.
