Our Supreme Court has ruled in the Lockhart v US case.

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=.../07/279033.html

The govt is now allowed to garnish up to 15 percent of the SS checks of anyone
for their student loan debts regardless of how old that debt might be. In this
case, a man in his 70s who only gets less than 900 a month will lose 15 percent of his income to "repay" a student loan debt over 15 years old which amounts to 77 thousand. The garnishment will not even cover the interest due.

So now the disabled and the elderly will feel the brunt of the student loan debt collection machine. Welcome to the new world order.

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=142597

I read the case and I still wonder why disabled people don't file for their loans to be discharged due to disability. There is a provision in federal law for this and it will show as a charge off with a zero balance but it's better than getting your small SSA check garnished.

This former postal worker was smart enough to hire attorneys to take his case to the US Supreme Court, but didn't want to file for a discharge due to his disability?

RE: Disablity discharge, A person has to be 100% disabled to get a student
loan discharged. Even then, according to what I have read it is difficult
to do. A doctor can sign the document and sometimes the government will
ignore it and still demand payment etc. I know a person without legs,has one
arm and blind in one eye and they cannot get total disability to discharge
their student loan(s) It appears the government has the final say and not
the doctor.

You don't have to be 100% disabled to qualify for a discharge due to disability. The feds define disability in this case as the inability to hold down 'gainful or substantial employment' or the disability is so severe, it is expected to end in the death of the student.

This usually means that the student has a disability so severe that he cannot hold down a job earning meaningful wages (more than minimum wage).

If you have a physician that is willing to say you qualify for SSA disability, he doesn't believe you would qualify for a discharge due to the same disability?

There is only one caveat to this provision, the disabled individual must now wait 3 years after filing to receive the discharge. During that time, the IRS monitors the student's earnings.

Once your loans have been permanently discharged, there is a provision for you to STILL regain your eligibility if the physician that certified your disability NOW certifies your disability has improved enough for the student to gain a benefit to returning to school.

True but this man is 77 years old. Even if he is physically able to work at a job that pays more than minimum wage, he should not be made to do so. Anyone this old has earned the right to retire and not work. But the govt still wants to take away his earned SS benefits becuase of some ancient student loans. Even if the loans were made when the man was maybe 50 years old, there is no excuse for the govt to treat its own citizens this way. The govt does not ask how old you are when they lend the money for student loans. (Another flaw in the student loan system). Theoretically, a person in their 90s could take out student loans and then defer/forbear them until they die. Is this wise legislation?

Also, the decision as to disability is entirely up to the govt. The govt will frequently deny the claims of multiple doctors on technicalities. Nice system
for the govt and its bank lender profiteers.

Actually he is 67 and from what I read he has not even attempted the permanent disability route yet. However when he was working, he was not paying on his loan.....so IMHO if he was capable of working he should get off his ass and do so.

maybe a labor camp would work?

If there is even a hint that this is going political I will close the thread and issue the offender(s) an official warning. If you want to discuss politics, take it to the proper forum.


fla-tan
Forum Moderator

Not necessarily. Age does not give one the right to anything.

Opinions are OK. Political opinions are not OK. At least on creditboards

I think politics sucks!

Sorry for the political opinion

If you can hire a lawyer, you can file to get it taken care of.

I screwed up, I pay for it, and am, and will be for another month.

I am not going to pay for the debt of anyone else who defaults on student loans. I see no real moral difference between stealing money and taking a student loan from the govenment without paying it back. The only difference is one gets you put in jail, the other takes your money to pay it back. I think the second is the far easier option. Then again, if the money was paid as agreed, the person who owes the debt wouldn't be in this spot, and looking at an even bigger scope, if people had paid student loans in the past, the government wouldn't have to resort to these tactics to get the money back.

I can tell you from first hand experience that a student loan can be discharged due to disability and 10 years later the come collecting again and some how have lost the mounds of paper work you filed to get the loan discharged.

By this time many document are gone on your side as well. Dr. passed away, blah blah... You send them copies of all you have and they are still not satisfied.

They disappear again for years then another 5 years later a new person is trying to collect.

I was also told recently that payments from them withholding a tax refund only paid the interest and did nothing toward the principal! BS!!

As for the case at hand. If this man is this old, how much do they think they are going to recover until he passes.

Actually this is not the case. Once a loan is is properly discharged by disability, you get a letter from the DOE quoting account numbers stating so. I have seen the docs. Sounds like in your first hand experience that the discharge was not granted. You might have submitted the paperwork, but sounds like it was never approved. The CA closes the account with a disability code and it is returned to the client. Paperwork probably never made it to where it was suppose to go to and the loan was simply passed on to the next CA. You have to follow thru until you get the discharge certificate.

With most IRS withholding, people are not paying on the account. Interest like any loan is paid first. Why is this BS??

Honestly, I dont see how student loan discussions can be made w/o involving politics. Sure we can tell most posters how current laws affect them but does that give them the best chance of surviving or dealing with their own problems? It seems to me that there are two schools of thought on student loans..... those who say
you must pay them back no matter what and those who look for other alternatives. Either way, a political statement is made. Perhaps all student loan questions should be transferred to the political forum.

I do not wish to cause controversy on this board but I do want the student loan debate to evolve to a higher level. If I should be required to post on the political forum then so be it (and please say so). But remember that all those who insist on you making repayments on your student loans or making excuses for govt ineptness are also making a political statement. Good luck to all and Happy Holidays!

Mike, don't go there, please. I really don't want to have to hand out a warning ... you're twisting this for whatever reason, and I really don't have patience to deal with it.

If you (or others) choose not to pay back your federally funded SLs, then that's your perogative. But I hope that when you make that conscious decision, you also realize that the government CAN and WILL get their money back any number of ways, not the least of which is wage garnishment. It's nice to have principles and stand by them, but when they can create hardship and problems that might otherwise been avoided, those principles might have to bend a bit.

If you want to get into the politics of repaying student loans, take it to www.politicsfirst.com. And please, don't try to take this tact again here.

Mike

This forum was established to discuss student loan issues such as repayment, default and what to do if you are in default, consolidation, how to obtain loans and whether to get Federally Guaranteed or private student loans...etc. This is where the Student Loan Forum will stay. You have th option of either staying within the framework that we set up or not. However, you and you alone will be responsible for any results of your decision.


fla-tan
Forum Moderator

OK I will respect your decisions. I will not post any political messages on this board.
If I choose to respond to a poster's student loan problem, I will stick to the existing
law. But can I at least refer them to the political board for more info? Perhaps you
could also make that statement in the stickys.

This board has a lot of knowledgeable people. I am sorry that this board does not
wish to engage in political discussion about credit, debts and student loans. But it is
not my board so I will comply with your requests. I would like to remain a member
of this community however. I do know a thing or two about collections also.

And finally, Quilty, I do not have a choice whether to repay my federal loans as well
as my private loans. My income is insufficient to pay any of these loans. I can probably
get the private loans dismissed based on an SOL argument but as you said the feds
can come after me forever. I dont want to make a political statement here so all I can
say is........

Happy Holidays to all.

Anytime you want to make a political comment, you are definitely free to tell people to see your posts at p1.

Thanks for respecting the admin's decision regarding this.

Happy Holidays to you, too.

you should read the cases before making political assumptions ;). what's reported in the news is rarely accurate.

the court can only rule on the arguments that the plaintiff makes, it can't arbitrarily declare that "retired people shouldn't have to pay student loans".

the plaintiff in this case argued that the garnishment should be time-barred (statute of limitations). the social security guidelines for debt collection and other modification of benefits are very specific. they state that for the existing guidelines to be modified, congress must specifically mention social security benefits in future changes to other laws debt collection laws. for instance if congress were to pass a law that states "debtors can garnish funds whenever they want" social security would be exempt unless the law stated "debtors can garnish funs whenever they want, including social security as outlined in §407(b) of the social security act. since the act that indefinitely extended student loan collection time-frames specifically mentioned social security, social security can be garnished and isn't immune after 10 years, since the requirement that the act sets forth of "must be specifically mentioned" was met. social security was specifically labeled as a garnishment source, it can be used, that's all the decision says.

if the plaintiff would've made a constitutional argument based on retirement age and indentured servitude, he might've gotten a different opinion and the court might've gone so far as to erase student loan collection laws. but he didn't, he just tried to duck behind a statute of limitations which is not possible, obviouisly.

a court will only rule on the argument you present, they won't make the argument for you.