Yes, Student Loan Payments Could Rise for SAVE Borrowers. Here's How to Calculate Yours
If you're enrolled in the Saving on a Valuable Education repayment plan, expect your student loan payments to increase.
Getty Images/CNET
If you're one of the eight million student loan borrowers enrolled in the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, you may have seen student loan payments as low as $0. With the SAVE plan officially struck down, you might be worried about how much you'll be required to pay in the future.
Although the Department of Education offers several other income-driven repayment plans, which cap your monthly bill at a percentage of your discretionary income, SAVE was the most affordable repayment plan to date. That means you should expect a higher monthly payment in the future.
"The payment is likely going to go up for borrowers enrolled in SAVE," said Elaine Rubin, a student loan policy expert for Edvisors and CNET Money expert review board member.
The earliest SAVE borrowers are expected to restart payments is December of this year, according to the Department of Education. However, many experts think the pause will last even longer, through mid-2026. While the forbearance remains in effect, here's how to calculate how much your monthly payment could increase.
What are my payment options when SAVE ends?
With SAVE off the table, you'll eventually need to switch to another repayment plan. You currently have three other options for income-driven repayment: Income-Based Repayment, Pay As You Earn and Income-Contingent Repayment.
"Each plan has its own eligibility rules and repayment formula," says student loan lawyer Adam Minsky. "Many borrowers will have higher monthly payments under these plans compared to the SAVE plan."
Alternatively, you could choose a plan that doesn't base payments on your income. These include the standard plan, graduated repayment and extended repayment. If you're enrolling in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness plan, you'll need to choose an income-driven repayment plan and not a standard plan.
How much could my student loan payment increase?
Most SAVE borrowers will see their payments increase on other payment plans, including IDRs. How much they might increase varies based on your income, household size and debt.
To help you get an idea of how much your student loan payment might rise when the SAVE payment pause ends, I reviewed different options available for a single filer who makes $60,000 a year and has a $30,000 student loan balance at a 6.53% interest rate, using Federal Student Aid's Loan Simulator tool.
Under SAVE, you would pay approximately $217 per month or less. Under other plans, you could see your payments rise from $70 to $370 per month. There are two situations where you could lower your monthly payment, but you'd be nearly doubling the amount you'd pay over the lifetime of your loan. Here's what it looks like.
Income-Contingent Repayment
The Income-Contingent Repayment plan sets your monthly payments to 20% of your discretionary income or what you'd pay on a fixed 12-year plan, whichever is less. Using the $30,000 loan example, here's what repayment would look like on ICR:
Monthly payment: $290
Total to be paid: $43,919
End of term date: September 2037
If you qualify for PSLF, you'd pay $35,389 on this plan before getting your remaining balance of $7,884 forgiven in April 2035.
Income-Based Repayment
The Income-Based Repayment plan sets your monthly payments to 10% of your discretionary income if you borrowed loans after July 1, 2014. If you borrowed before that date, your payment would be set to 15%. This plan has a cap on payments — if your income increases, your payments will never be higher than what you'd pay on the standard 10-year plan.
Here's what the payments on that $30,000 loan would look like on IBR:
Monthly payment: $312
Total to be paid: $41,473
End of term date: August 2035
If you qualify for PSLF, you'd pay $40,259 on this plan before getting your remaining balance of $1,198 forgiven in April 2035.
Pay As You Earn
The Paye As You Earn plan sets your payments to 10% of your discretionary income. Like IBR, your payments on PAYE will never go higher than what they'd be on the standard plan.
According to the loan simulator, your payments would be the same on PAYE as on IBR based on the $30,000 loan example.
Monthly payment: $312
Total to be paid: $41,473
End of term date: August 2035
This is the last plan on this list that qualifies for PSLF. The forgiveness amount would be the same as the IBR plan.
Standard Repayment
The standard plan doesn't base your payments on your income. It gives you a fixed payment over 10 years.
Monthly payment: $341
Total to be paid: $40,932
End of term date: April 2035
Graduated Repayment
The graduated repayment plan has you pay off your loans over 10 years, too. However, payments start out lower and increase every couple of years. While your payment would start out lower, you'll see it jumps significantly over time. This plan is best for anyone starting out in a new career who expects to make significantly more money as they progress.
Monthly payment: $196 - $589
Total to be paid: $43,916
End of term date: April 2035
Extended Repayment
You can qualify for this plan if you owe at least $30,000. It has fixed payments and spans 25 years. You'd see a lower monthly payment with this plan, but since you're spreading out your payments over two and a half decades, you'll end up paying double the amount you borrowed.
Monthly payment: $203
Total to be paid: $60,937
End of term date: April 2050
Note: The above payment options could change in the future. Republicans on the House Education Committee recently introduced a proposal that would eliminate many of the plans above for new borrowers and replace them with two options: a Standard Repayment Plan and a Repayment Assistance Plan. The standard plan would have fixed payments ranging from 10 to 25 years, while the Repayment Assistance Plan would base payments on a borrower's total adjusted gross income and waive monthly unpaid interest.
Could I save money by refinancing with a private student loan?
Refinancing a loan can be helpful for creditworthy borrowers who can qualify for a low interest rate -- but experts generally warn against refinancing if you have federal student debt.
Rubin doesn't recommend refinancing if you're counting on federal student loan benefits, working toward PSLF, enrolled in an income-driven repayment plan or living paycheck-to-paycheck. For most borrowers who were enrolled in SAVE, refinancing with a private lender won't make sense.
"Even if you're comfortably making payments, if something were to happen, you might find yourself locked into a very challenging situation," Rubin previously told CNET.
When you refinance with a private lender, you're giving up your federal student loan benefits. That means you won't qualify for financial hardship assistance, federal payment pauses, federal loan forgiveness or similar benefits. Once you've refinanced with a private lender, you can't reverse the process.
How to prepare for a higher student loan payment
Borrowers in SAVE may not have owed any money on their student loans since March 2020 when the first federal forbearance period started. As SAVE makes its way through the courts, experts expect repayment to resume at the end of this year or sometime in 2026.
Depending on your income and family size, that could mean fitting a sizable bill into your monthly budget. To prepare for that, Rubin recommends:
Use the Department of Education's loan simulator to estimate the size of your monthly payment.
Speak with a trusted, nonprofit source, such as Edvisors or The Institute of Student Loan Advisors, for advice on applying for and choosing the best repayment plan for your financial circumstances.
Talk to a student loan advisor and an accountant about potential tax strategies to lower your adjusted gross income (used to calculate payments in some cases).
Review your current finances to find places to cut or move costs (for instance, eliminating subscriptions, slowing other debt repayment or reducing your savings contributions).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
31 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Benefits And Drawbacks Of RFK Jr.'s New COVID Vaccine Recommendations
SAVANNAH, GA - DECEMBER 15: A nurse shows off a vial of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine ... More outside of the Chatham County Health Department on December 15, 2020 in Savannah, Georgia. (Photo by) RFK Jr. and the HHS will no longer recommend annual COVID-19 vaccines for healthy pregnant women and young adults, according to a video announcement posted on X May 27 by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. A few days later, the CDC took a slightly different stance and stated that children between the ages of 6 months and 17 years may get the COVID-19 vaccine through shared decision-making between parents and healthcare providers. The CDC also updated the adult immunization schedule to say there is 'no guidance' on use for pregnancy. These decisions have sparked much debate among public health experts, policymakers and government officials. Here are the pros and cons of such a policy shift. As Kennedy cited in his video announcement, the U.S. seems to be aligning its vaccine policy with other countries such as the U.K. and Australia that have stopped recommending routine COVID-19 vaccines for young healthy adults. In addition, according to the new recommendations, the focus of vaccinations will largely be on high-risk populations, namely those who are 65 years of age and older as well as younger individuals with at least one medical condition that puts them at high risk for COVID-19. This could allow resources and attention to be redirected to the populations that need the vaccine most. The new recommendations also demand evidence in answering important questions the public deserves to know. For younger healthy American adults, getting approval for the vaccine will require placebo-controlled trials to show a benefit for that particular population. As an example, does a healthy 31-year-old male with no medical problems need to get a COVID-19 booster every single year, even after having received several COVID-19 boosters in the past? These are the types of questions that all Americans would like to and deserve to know with respect to COVID vaccinations. On the flip side, the new recommendations have many public health experts concerned. Pregnant healthy females could be barred from getting the COVID-19 vaccine, since the CDC has failed to provide guidance on the issue. Without a strong recommendation from the CDC, many pregnant patients could face real barriers from insurance companies to cover the vaccine, according to The New York Times. Pregnant women are at high risk for COVID infection and complications because pregnancy results in a weakened immune system. As Dr. Steven Fleischman, President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states, 'The science has not changed. It is very clear that COVID infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic and lead to major disability.' The new recommendations could harm vulnerable populations. In addition to potential decreased vaccination rates and adverse outcomes for pregnant females, children could also suffer. When pregnant females get vaccinated against COVID-19 in the third trimester, they are able to pass along antibodies and protection to their infants, who have not developed mature immune systems. If pregnant females do not get vaccinated, infants will lack these antibodies and could then go on to develop severe complications from the virus should they get infected. Finally, the new recommendations could limit access to the vaccine to those that want it. Private insurance companies usually require FDA approval and CDC recommendations to cover the vaccine as part of health insurance. The current CDC recommendations simply state young children may get the vaccine with shared-decision making, not outright stating that they should get the vaccine. In addition, the CDC falls short in explicitly recommending the vaccine for pregnant females. This could prevent private insurance companies from fully covering the vaccine. Ultimately, this may mean some pregnant women and those that cannot afford the vaccine may not have access to it. The new recommendations for the COVID-19 vaccine for children and pregnant females was made without the customary use of independent advisors, and could have important implications for public health. While aligning with international practices, the move could significantly limit the amount of vaccines available for millions of Americans.
CNN
32 minutes ago
- CNN
CNN Poll: A record share of Americans want the government to get more done. Few trust either party to do it
Neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party has consolidated a majority of the public behind its approach, with more than 4 in 10 saying that neither party can get things done or has strong leadership, a new CNN survey conducted by SSRS finds. Despite those widespread doubts, Americans increasingly say they see meaningful differences between the two parties. The poll, taken as public opinion resettles in the first months of Donald Trump's second administration, also finds a record-high share of the public saying that the government should be doing more to solve problems. Americans are evenly split on which party best reflects their views on the role of the federal government, with one-third of respondents saying neither party does. Amid a wave of skepticism among Democrats about their own party's effectiveness, the GOP currently holds the advantage across several key attributes — though with a shrinking advantage on the economy, which regularly polls as Americans' top concern. Americans see Republicans and Democrats as offering vastly contrasting visions of the country. An 81% majority say they see important differences between the two parties, marking an increase from two years ago across political, age and educational lines. Just 18% say the parties are 'pretty much the same,' down from 28% in 2023 and roughly one-third in CNN and Gallup polling dating back to 2002. But even among those who say there are critical differences between the two major parties, a sizable minority say neither reflects their vision across a range of issues: Nearly 20% who see such differences still say neither party reflects their perspective on at least 5 out of 9 issues they were asked about in the poll. Asked to choose which of the parties they see as the 'party that can get things done,' 'the party with strong leaders' or the 'party of change,' the lion's share of the public – more than 4 in 10 – say that neither party fits the bill. At the same time, most Americans, 58%, now say that the government should do more to solve the country's problems – a record high in more than 30 years of CNN's polling. While Democratic views on the role of government have remained largely unchanged over the past two years, the shares of Republicans and independents who say that the government is doing too many things have both fallen since the White House changed hands. While neither political party is viewed as especially strong or effective, skepticism weighs particularly heavily on the Democratic Party. Americans are far more likely to see Republicans than Democrats as the party with strong leaders: 40% say this descriptor applies more to the GOP, with just 16% saying it applies to the Democrats. They're also more likely to call Republicans the party that can get things done by 36% to 19%, and the party of change, by 32% to 25%. That's in large part because of relatively anemic support for Democrats among their own partisans. GOP-aligned adults are 50 points likelier than Democratic-aligned adults to say their own party has strong leaders, and 36 points likelier to view their party as able to get things done. True independents, those who don't lean toward either party, are particularly grim in their views of the parties on these issues: 76% say neither party has strong leaders or can get things done, and 72% that they view neither as the party of change. While the public as a whole sees the GOP as relatively effective, they also say, 41% to 30%, that it's better described as the party of extremism, the only attribute tested that fewer than 30% said applied to neither party. Roughly one-sixth of Republican-aligned adults say they view the GOP as representing extremism, compared with roughly one-tenth of Democratic-aligned adults who say the same of their own party. Beyond Americans' shifting views of government, the survey also finds ebbing belief in the achievability of the American Dream. A 54% majority says that most people who want to get ahead can make it if they're willing to work hard, down from 67% in 2016, and lower than other polling on the same question dating back to the 1990s. Nearly half, 45%, say they don't view hard work and determination as any guarantee of success for most people. That rises to a 52% majority of Black Americans and 53% among those younger than 30, as well as 53% of those who don't agree with either party on the economy, 65% among Democrats and 71% among those who describe themselves as liberal. Americans are closely split on which party represents the middle class, with a third saying neither does. The view that neither party stands for the middle class rises to 38% among those who say hard work and determination are no guarantee of success for most people. Asked which party best reflects their views on handling the economy more broadly – a perennial top issue that has frequently favored the GOP – the public gives the Republican Party an advantage, but a shrinking one. The party's 7-point margin on the issue now is down from 15 points in May 2022, and marks their narrowest advantage on the issue over that time. The Republican Party also sees a diminished edge on immigration, another typically strong topic for the Trump-led party: What was a 14-point lead in November 2023 now stands at just 6 points. Looking outward, Americans are now evenly divided on which party's views on world affairs more closely match their own, an issue where Republicans held a 6-point edge in 2023. Across issues tested in the poll, Republicans held the widest advantage – 13 points – on their approach to crime and policing, and that margin has largely held over time. The public also leans modestly toward the GOP when it comes to taxes (by a 7-point margin) and the federal budget (5 points). Support for legal abortion remains strong in CNN's polling, with a rising share of the public, 36%, now saying that abortion should be legal under any circumstances. Roughly 6 in 10 Democrats now say abortion should always be legal, up from 44% in 2016. In a CNN survey last year, a roughly two-thirds majority of the public opposed the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade. By a 10-point margin, Americans say their views on abortion align more with the Democrats than the Republicans, although that's down from a 16-point advantage in fall 2023. Roughly two-thirds of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say the GOP reflects their views on abortion – significantly lower than the share who side with their party on issues such as the economy or immigration. Amid internal Democratic arguments over the party's messaging on issues surrounding race and gender, the poll finds that Americans side with the Democratic Party over the Republican Party on the way society deals with LGBTQ issues by an 8-point margin and with racial issues and education by a 7-point margin each. By a wide margin, 72% to 27%, most Americans say that growing racial diversity does more to enrich than threaten American culture. That's slightly broader agreement than last fall, though it still falls short of the more than 8 in 10 who called diversity enriching during Trump's first term. The sense of diversity as a threat is largely concentrated among the GOP, particularly among Republican-aligned men. Currently, 45% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents call diversity a threat, up from just 20% who said the same in 2019, during Trump's first term in office. Democratic opinion has moved little in that time. Democrats held their widest advantage in the poll, 14 points, on handling climate change. A 58% majority of adults say they're at least somewhat worried about the risks of climate change in their community, down slightly from the 63% who said they were at least somewhat worried in the fall of 2023. About one-quarter in each poll said they were very worried. By a 5-point margin, Americans say their view of how to protect U.S. democracy aligns more with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. Roughly half of Americans say that democracy in the U.S. today is under attack, with 36% saying it's being tested, and only about 13% that it's not in any danger. While these concerns have held roughly steady since 2021, partisan dynamics have shifted sharply in that time. In the latest poll, 72% of Democrats see democracy in crisis, compared with just 29% of Republicans. By contrast, during Joe Biden's presidency, concerns were either roughly balanced or higher among the GOP. The CNN poll was conducted among 2,539 adults nationwide by SSRS from May 5-26, using a combination of online and telephone interviews. The survey samples were originally drawn from two sources – an address-based sample and a random-digit dial sample of prepaid cell phone numbers – and combined. Respondents were initially contacted by mail or by phone. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.7 percentage points.
Forbes
33 minutes ago
- Forbes
Market Implications Of Tariff Litigation And AI Spending
Despite what could be a lengthy legal battle, tariffs are unlikely to be removed completely. The ... More sectoral tariffs were not challenged and President Trump added additional steel tariffs on Friday. The tariff dispute does have some crucial implications for future trade deals and the tax bill. US economic data releases, which generally raised estimates of second-quarter economic growth, combined with strong earnings from Nvidia (NVDA), helped send stocks higher for the week. Additionally, improvement in consumer confidence helped raise optimism that the tariff overhang doesn't need to sink the economy. A portion of the tariffs implemented by the Trump administration was briefly overturned, though it was reinstated pending appeal. After the rally last week, the S&P 500 sits only 3.8% below its mid-February high. The Magnificent 7, consisting of Microsoft (MSFT), Meta Platforms (META), (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), NVIDIA (NVDA), Alphabet (GOOGL), and Tesla (TSLA), has fared worse, and the group is 5.5% below its mid-December summit despite outperforming last week. Market Performance The betting odds of a recession in 2025 have continued to decline. This improvement aligns with the supportive economic data released last week, which increased the estimates of US second-quarter GDP growth. Furthermore, the Conference Board's survey of consumer confidence rose after plummeting in the wake of President Trump's tariff announcements on Liberation Day. Betting Odds Of US Recession In 2025 Notably, stocks hit their April low when betting odds of recession were at their highest. As one should expect, the S&P 500 index has risen as the odds of a recession have declined. Stocks & Recession Odds Nvidia did not disappoint investors with better-than-expected quarterly earnings and robust guidance for second-quarter revenue growth of 50% year-over-year. Some worries that the spending on artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure had weighed on the mega-cap technology companies, as represented by the Magnificent 7. In early April, the group was 30% below their mid-December peak. Most of this decline has reversed due to lower odds of recession. Additionally, the first-quarter earnings season provided evidence of both continued spending on AI infrastructure and, more importantly, proof that companies were successfully monetizing these AI investments into tangible earnings growth. Magnificent 7: Q1 Estimated Earnings Growth Last week, the Court of International Trade (CIT) struck down the majority of the tariffs implemented by the Trump administration. The sectoral tariffs, for example, those on autos and steel, were not impacted by this ruling. The tariffs removed include the 10% universal tariff, the reciprocal tariffs, and the specific tariffs targeting China, Canada, and Mexico. According to Strategas, this would remove about $220 billion in tariffs, leaving just $40 billion of those implemented since the start of the year. Within less than 24 hours after the ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted a stay. Therefore, the tariffs will remain in place, and the US will not yet need to refund the tariff revenue collected to date. This litigation could be a lengthy process, but even if the tariffs are struck down at the end of the litigation, President Trump has the legal authority to reimpose tariffs via alternative methods. However, these methods come with some additional limitations. According to Strategas, Sections 338 and 122 of the Tariff Act of 1930 can be utilized quickly to reinstate many of the tariffs that are currently at risk. Section 338 allows for tariffs of up to 50% that take effect 30 days after announcement, with no time limit on their duration. Section 122 gives the president the authority to impose tariffs of up to 15% with immediate effect, but these tariffs can only remain in place for 150 days without congressional approval. Furthermore, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 permits the imposition of tariffs following an investigation by the United States Trade Representative (USTR). It is doubtful that tariffs will go away unless President Trump decides that they are, but the utilization of other methods is more laborious, time-consuming, and comes with more limitations. Even though tariffs seem likely to remain a part of the investment landscape, regardless of the outcome of the litigation, there are some crucial implications of the additional uncertainty. On the margin, the possibility that the courts could remove the tariffs leaves the Trump administration with less leverage to negotiate trade deals with other countries. Countries may choose to stall and see what happens with the litigation. The G-7 meeting in June could provide some insight into whether any new deals are forthcoming. The tax bill passed by the US House of Representatives was debt-neutral if the revenue from the tariffs was included in the scoring. The risk to the tariff revenue may further complicate the Senate's deliberations in passing a version of the bill. Markets will remain on the tariffs, with markets watching for any changes in US policy and the progress of the legal challenge. Further, retaliation from or trade deals with other countries will be notable. The economic calendar has the critical monthly jobs report on Friday. Expectations are for nonfarm payroll job growth to slow to 125,000 from 177,000 in April. The unemployment rate is expected to remain steady at 4.2%. These forecasts are consistent with the weekly initial filings for unemployment benefits, which remain low and don't indicate a collapse in the labor market. Initial Jobless Claims Ongoing claims for unemployment benefits are rising, indicating that it is taking longer for those losing their jobs to find new employment. The labor market is showing signs of bending but not yet breaking. Continuing Claims Regardless of the outcome of the tariff litigation, tariffs are unlikely to be banished completely. To that point, President Trump imposed a 50% steel tariff late last Friday, and these sectoral tariffs are not part of the current legal challenge. Recent hard economic data, along with some soft data, such as consumer confidence, have raised optimism that US economic growth remains resilient. Furthermore, technology spending related to artificial intelligence continues, with the sector producing robust earnings growth. This week's jobs report will be another key indicator of the US economy's health.
