Here's what your monthly student loan bill could be under a new Republican plan
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
5 hours ago
- NBC News
Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' includes these key tax changes for 2025 — what they mean for you
It's been about two weeks since President Donald Trump 's 'big beautiful bill' became law, and financial advisors and tax professionals are still digesting what the sweeping legislation means for clients. Meanwhile, several changes are effective for 2025, which will impact tax returns filed in 2026. While the Trump administration has been promoting ' working family tax cuts,' the legislation's impact depends on your unique situation — and some updates are complex, experts say. 'There are just so many moving pieces,' said certified financial planner Jim Guarino, managing director at Baker Newman Noyes in Woburn, Massachusetts. He is also a certified public accountant. Currently, many advisors are running projections — often for multiple years — to see how the new provisions could impact taxes. Without income planning, you could reduce, or even eliminate, various tax benefits for which you are otherwise eligible, experts say. When it comes to tax strategy, 'you never want to do anything in a silo,' Guarino said. Here are some of the key changes from Trump's legislation to know for 2025, and how the updates could affect your taxes. Trump's 2017 tax cut extensions The Republicans' marquee law made permanent Trump's 2017 tax cuts — including lower tax brackets and higher standard deductions, among other provisions — which broadly reduced taxes for Americans. Without the extension, most filers could have seen higher taxes in 2026, according to a 2024 report from the Tax Foundation. However, the new law enhances Trump's 2017 cuts, with a few tax breaks that start in 2025: The standard deduction increases from $15,000 to $15,750 (single filers) and $30,000 to $31,500 (married filing jointly). There is also a bump for the child tax credit, with the maximum benefit going from $2,000 to $2,200 per child. If you itemize tax breaks, there is also a temporary higher cap on the state and local tax deduction, or SALT. For 2025, the SALT deduction limit is $40,000, up from $10,000. The higher SALT benefit phases out, or reduces, for incomesbetween $500,000 to $600,000, which can create an artificially higher tax rate of 45.5% that some experts are calling a 'SALT torpedo.' This creates a 'sweet spot' for the SALT deduction between $200,000 and $500,000 of earnings, based on other provisions in the bill, CPA John McCarthy wrote in a blog post this week. Trump's new tax changes for 2025 Trump's tax and spending bill also introduced some temporary tax breaks, which are effective for 2025. Some of these were floated during his 2024 presidential provisions include a $6,000 'bonus' deduction for certain older Americans ages 65 and over, which phases out over $75,000 for single filers or $150,000 for married couples filing jointly. There are also new deductions for tip income, overtime earnings and car loan interest, with varying eligibility requirements. This chart shows a breakdown of some of the key individual provisions that are effective for 2025 compared to previous law. Premium tax credit 'subsidy cliff' returns During the pandemic, Congress boosted the premium tax credit through 2025, which made Marketplace health insurance more affordable. But Trump's legislation didn't extend the enhanced tax break, which could raise Affordable Care Act premiums for more than 22 million enrollees if no action is taken, according to KFF, a health policy organization. That could impact enrollees when choosing ACA health plans this fall, according to Tommy Lucas, a CFP and enrolled agent at Moisand Fitzgerald Tamayo in Orlando, Florida. Starting in 2026, enrollees need to prepare for the ACA subsidy cliff, where enrollees lose the premium tax credit when income exceeds the earnings thresholds by even $1, he said. Currently, most ACA enrollees receive at least part of the premium tax credit. However, the subsidy cliff means enrollees lose the benefit once earnings exceed 400% of the federal poverty limit. For 2025, that threshold was $103,280 for a family of three, according to The Peterson Center on Healthcare, a nonprofit for healthcare policy, and KFF.
The Guardian
7 hours ago
- The Guardian
Pete Hegseth is skirting law by bringing back Confederate names of army bases
Since Donald Trump returned to office this year, his secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, has ripped the new names off a series of US army bases and brought back their old traitorous Confederate names. His actions have angered Democrats and even some Republicans in Congress, prompting a rare rebuke of the Trump administration by the Republican-controlled Congress last Tuesday. The GOP-led House of Representatives Armed Services Committee voted on 15 July to block Hegseth from renaming the bases after Confederates. Two Republicans voted with the Democrats on the committee to pass the measure, which was an amendment to the Pentagon's budget bill. 'What this administration is doing, particularly this secretary of defense, is sticking his finger in the eye of Congress,' said Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican representative who voted to stop Hegseth. Hegseth's move elicited bipartisan anger because it flouted the law; Congress passed legislation in January 2021 to create a commission to choose new names for the bases named for Confederates and mandated that its recommendations be implemented by the Pentagon. That law was passed over a veto by Trump in the final days of his first term, and the name changes were later implemented by the Pentagon during the Biden administration. The law is still on the books, and so in order to return to the old Confederate names, Hegseth has openly played games with their namesakes. The secretary claims he has renamed the bases after American soldiers from throughout US history who were not Confederates. But they all conveniently have the same last names as the original Confederate namesakes of the bases. For example, Fort Bragg is now supposedly named for Roland Bragg, who was an army paratrooper in the second world war; Fort Benning is now supposedly named for Fred Benning, a soldier who served in the army in the first world war. Before the House vote, Hegseth's efforts to skirt the law were also challenged in the Senate. In a hearing in June, Angus King, a senator from Maine, told Hegseth that he was returning the bases to the names of 'people who took up arms against their country on behalf of slavery'. Hegseth insisted that the Pentagon had found non-Confederates with the same names to stay within 'the limits of what Congress allowed us to do'. But during the same hearing, Hegseth briefly dropped the pretense that he wasn't returning to the original Confederate names. He argued that 'there is a legacy, a connection' for veterans with the old names. King replied that Hegseth's actions were 'an insult to the people of the United States'. Above all, Hegseth's actions show a troubling ignorance of the lives of the original Confederate namesakes; their easily-researched backgrounds reveal what terrible role models they make for modern American military personnel. Braxton Bragg was one of the most incompetent Confederate generals of the civil war. His subordinates repeatedly and clandestinely tried to get him fired, with one writing to the Confederate secretary of war that 'nothing but the hand of God can save us or help us as long as we have our present commander'. Bragg finally lost his command after he was out-generaled by Union General Ulysses S Grant and his army was routed at the Battle of Chattanooga in 1863. One of the few biographies written about him is entitled Braxton Bragg, the Most Hated Man in the Confederacy. And yet Bragg lives on today as the namesake of the largest and most important military base in the United States Army. Fort Bragg, in Fayetteville, North Carolina was originally built in 1918, as part of a rushed effort by the army to construct new bases after the United States entered the first world war. The site offered the army cheap and abundant land, and it quickly built a base and surrounding military reservation totaling 251 sq miles. Eager to win local white support, the army agreed to name the new base after a Confederate; Bragg was chosen because he was originally from North Carolina. By the time the base was built, the civil war had been over for more than 50 years, yet the south was still in the grips of the 'the Lost Cause' theory of the war, which romanticized the civil war and held that the south had fought for state's rights, not slavery, and that the Confederacy had fielded better officers and men and had only lost because of the overwhelming resources of the north. By 1918, when Bragg's name was attached to the base, the generation of Confederate officers who hated him were gone, along with the memory of his military blunders. That pattern held for a series of major bases built throughout the south during the first and second world wars. Fort Benning was also built in 1918 near Columbus, Georgia. At the request of the Columbus Rotary Club, the army named it for Henry Lewis Benning, who was best known as a pro-slavery political firebrand from Columbus who helped draft Georgia's ordinance of secession. Benning was one of the pre-eminent white supremacists of his day, and he openly admitted that his state seceded because of slavery, not states rights. In one speech, he said that his state seceded because of a 'deep conviction on the part of Georgia that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery … If things are allowed to go on as they are … we will have black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything. Is it supposed that the white race will stand for that?' Benning served in the Confederate army, but it was his political role as a proponent of a southern slavocracy that first brought him fame and prominence. By the 21st century, there were still 10 army bases that were named for Confederates, and the Pentagon repeatedly resisted efforts to change their names, arguing that tradition outweighed the fact that the bases were named for traitors who had fought to preserve slavery. The Confederate base names were finally changed after the 2020 George Floyd protests; Fort Bragg became Fort Liberty, while Fort Benning became Fort Moore, named for Vietnam War hero Hal Moore and his wife, Julia Moore. (Mel Gibson played Hal Moore and Madeleine Stowe played Julia Moore in the 2002 movie We Were Soldiers.) But those new names didn't survive Trump's return to office. Hegseth hasn't stopped with army bases. The Pentagon has announced it will strip the name off the US navy ship Harvey Milk, which was named for the gay rights pioneer who was assassinated in 1978, and rename it for Oscar V Peterson, a sailor who won the Congressional Medal of Honor during the second world war. But one thing is certain: Braxton Bragg's civil war contemporaries would be shocked to discover that a man so widely derided as a loser and a martinet during his lifetime is still at the center of a national debate 160 years after the war ended. During the war, one Confederate newspaper editor described him as a man with 'an iron hand and a wooden head'. Grant, the man who so badly beat Bragg during the war, took great pleasure in making fun of Bragg and his ridiculous behavior when he later wrote his memoirs. Grant recounted one infamous episode involving Bragg from the time before the civil war when both men served in the small, pre-war US army. 'On one occasion, when stationed at a post … (Bragg) was commanding one of the companies and at the same time acting as post quartermaster … As commander of the company he made a requisition upon the quartermaster – himself – for something he wanted. As quartermaster he declined to fill the requisition and endorsed on the back of it his reasons for so doing. As company commander he responded to this, urging that his requisition called for nothing but what he was entitled to, and that it was the duty of the quartermaster to fill it. As quartermaster he still persisted that he was right … Bragg referred the whole matter to the commanding officer of the post. The latter exclaimed: 'My God, Mr. Bragg, you have quarreled with every officer in the army, and now you are quarrelling with yourself!' In his memoirs, Grant wrote that Bragg was 'naturally disputatious'. So maybe Braxton Bragg would fit in perfectly with Donald Trump after all.
Daily Mail
9 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Elon Musk could upend the 2026 midterms and MAGA majority but THESE are the menacing roadblocks to his grand plan
Elon Musk is embracing the role of troublemaker for Republicans in the 2026 midterms, threatening to form a third-party that could play spoiler to the GOP 's effort of holding onto the Senate and House. July polling conducted for the Daily Mail by J.L. Partners found that while a Musk-backed party would only garner 4 percent support, it allowed the Democrats to have a 9-point advantage over the GOP in a generic House of Representatives ballot. The world's richest man clearly bears the resources to upend the traditional duopoly that's powered American politics for more than two centuries. What remains foggy is whether the tech titan holds the strategic focus, discipline and sheer will that such a daunting political undertaking will require. Especially in an epic showdown against the singular political force of one Donald J. Trump. If Musk's political drive matches the market capitalization of Tesla, he could create a movement that could easily kill the GOP majority. 'If Elon invests in half a dozen races, that could be the difference between the Republicans being in power and Hakeem Jeffries and AOC having the keys to power. And that is unacceptable,' said James Fishback, a former Department of Government Efficiency employee who's now funding an effort to stop Musk in his tracks. If his commitment mirrors his uneven stewardship of X, formerly known as Twitter, his third party movement won't be known for more than a viral meme. 'Third parties are nothing new to politics on any level. We already have the Libertarians, we already have the Green Party, we already have the Rent is Too Damn High party,' pointed out Hogan Gidley, an adviser to House Speaker Mike Johnson and a veteran of the first Trump administration. 'The political reality is it is extremely difficult to mount third party runs that are victorious because you don't have a natural base of voters of which to pull,' Gidley observed. 'He doesn't have the juice.' Musk also doesn't seem to yet have his ducks in a row. Despite his announcement on July 7 that he was officially forming the American Party, Musk has filed no paperwork to do so. An aide to Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie - who Musk signaled he would help defend from a Trump primary challenge - wasn't able to point the Daily Mail to any official outreach. And then there's Musk's own waning political popularity. CNN released a survey Friday showing him as the least popular public figure the network polled, with Musk's favorability plummeting a staggering 66 percentage points in just four months. Support for his third party registered at a paltry 25 percent. The entity that appears most outwardly excited about Musk's third party play is a group that's been struggling to find relevance for decades: Libertarians. 'Our position is that Elon should join up with the Libertarians for the simple fact that we have the most ballot access of any third party,' Steven Nekhaila, chair of the Libertarian National Committee, told the Daily Mail. It's extremely difficult to run winning candidates outside the two-party system due to differing and often confusing ballot access rules in every state. Many states require tens of thousands of signatures apportioned over specific geographic regions to qualify. 'I think Elon is going to be pleasantly displeased with just how difficult it is to actually get ballot access in a lot of states,' he continued. Both Musk and Libertarians see value in an electoral strategy where a small group of candidates can gain leverage in Congress - Nekhaila noted that electing just a handful could wield significant influence, as major parties would need their votes to pass legislation. Nekhaila also suggested Musk pursue a broad, anti-duopoly movement to attract centrist voters. Musk appears to be interested in that type of thing as he's been in touch with Andrew Yang, who's been active in the third-party space since launching his Forward Party in 2021. At the same time, nothing firm came out of the chatter. 'Yes, Andrew did speak with Elon and his team, but he has made no commitments or plans to collaborate on anything specific in the near or future term,' a source close to Yang told the Daily Mail. 'The line of communication remains open,' the source added. A spokesperson for Musk did not respond to Daily Mail questions inquiring when Musk would form his America Party and if he's considering joining the Libertarians. If Musk really wanted advice on the challenges in mounting a third-party, he could reach out to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump's current Health and Human Services Secretary. After Kennedy announced he was mounting an independent bid for the White House, much of his campaign's time was sucked up seeking ballot access. For instance, the Kennedy campaign got a jump on collecting signatures in Nevada to get on the ballot, but because RFK Jr. hadn't announced a running mate yet they had to be tossed out. In the end, Kennedy only made the ballot in 15 states before he ended his campaign. Additionally, there are already Trump-aligned groups ready to combat any of Musk's efforts. In late June, two of Trump's top political advisers, Chris LaCivita and Tony Fabrizio, launched MAGA Kentucky, a super PAC designed with one purpose - damage Massie. One of MAGA Kentucky's first ads blasted Massie as an acolyte of uber-liberals Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and likening him to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for questioning Trump's bombing campaign of Iran. Musk vowed to help the libertarian congressman but has made no moves to since. Fishback, the CEO of the investment firm Azoria, poured a million dollars of his own money to a new super PAC that was named to troll Musk. The group is called FSD PAC as 'FSD' in Tesla parlance means 'full self-driving' cars. But in the political world, Fishback wanted the acronym to mean 'Full Support for Donald.' The PAC will deploy a whack-a-mole type strategy, waiting for Musk to pop his head up. If Musk funds a candidate, FSD PAC will finance the Trump-aligned alternative. 'It's a hedge,' Fishback explained to the Daily Mail. 'I hope, by the way, that this is simply an insurance policy,' he added. Trump has his own insurance policy - a massive war chest, with Fox News reporting in late June totals about $1.4 billion. 'This will likely be a headache for Republicans,' Republican strategist Ron Bonjean said of Musk's involvement. 'But with Trump being the fundraiser-in-chief and an already massive billion dollar war chest, money isn't going to be an issue.' However with Musk threatening to run primary challengers against MAGA-aligned Republicans Bonjean warned that 'candidate quality is going matter now more than ever in order to be successful.' Democrats are enthusiastic that Musk and any Musk-aligned candidates could potentially shine more light on two issue areas where they could benefit - the 'big, beautiful bill' and Jeffrey Epstein. 'The 'Big, Beautiful' tax law is Republicans' top liability because it breaks their promises to lower costs and stand up for working people. Musk's attacks on the BBB compound that problem,' observed Andrew Bates, the principal at Wolfpack Strategies, and a veteran of President Joe Biden's press shop. The White House's Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair shrugged off Musk's threats in a gaggle with reporters on Friday.
