IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fednsr/95425.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing the Relative Progressivity of the Biden Administration’s Federal Student Loan Forgiveness Proposal

Author

Listed:

Abstract

We quantify the total stock of balances eligible for the Biden Administration’s student loan forgiveness policy announced and examine which groups benefit most. Up to $442 billion in loans are eligible. Those benefiting most are younger, have lower credit scores, and live in lower- and middle-income neighborhoods. We also find that Black and Hispanic borrowers disproportionately benefit from the proposal. We then compare the distribution of beneficiaries for the announced policy to several alternative hypothetical forgiveness proposals and three existing tax credits. The additional forgiveness for Pell grant recipients increased the progressivity of the policy at a cost of $129 billion. Reducing the income eligibility criterion in half from the announced policy would have reduced the cost by nearly $100 billion and made the policy more progressive. Compared to existing tax credits, the announced forgiveness policy is less progressive than the Earned Income Tax Credit but more progressive than the 2019 Child Tax Credit and higher education tax credits. We conclude by describing the remaining federal portfolio if the policy is implemented, and we summarize current credit conditions for federal borrowers. Rising credit card and auto delinquencies for borrowers with paused payments foreshadow future credit difficulties for borrowers if federal loan payments resume without relief.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacob Goss & Daniel Mangrum & Joelle Scally, 2023. "Assessing the Relative Progressivity of the Biden Administration’s Federal Student Loan Forgiveness Proposal," Staff Reports 1046, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
  • Handle: RePEc:fip:fednsr:95425
    Note: Revised June 2023.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr1046.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr1046.html
    File Function: Summary
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Manasi Deshpande & Yue Li, 2019. "Who Is Screened Out? Application Costs and the Targeting of Disability Programs," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 213-248, November.
    2. Kopczuk, Wojciech & Pop-Eleches, Cristian, 2007. "Electronic filing, tax preparers and participation in the Earned Income Tax Credit," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(7-8), pages 1351-1367, August.
    3. Rossin-Slater, Maya, 2013. "WIC in your neighborhood: New evidence on the impacts of geographic access to clinics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 51-69.
    4. Saurabh Bhargava & Dayanand Manoli, 2015. "Psychological Frictions and the Incomplete Take-Up of Social Benefits: Evidence from an IRS Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(11), pages 3489-3529, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wu, Derek & Meyer, Bruce D., 2023. "Certification and Recertification in Welfare Programs: What Happens When Automation Goes Wrong?," IZA Discussion Papers 16294, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Tatiana Homonoff & Jason Somerville, 2021. "Program Recertification Costs: Evidence from SNAP," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 13(4), pages 271-298, November.
    3. Ha Trong Nguyen & Huong Thu Le & Luke B Connelly, 2021. "Who's declining the “free lunch”? New evidence from the uptake of public child dental benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 270-288, February.
    4. Manasi Deshpande & Yue Li, 2019. "Who Is Screened Out? Application Costs and the Targeting of Disability Programs," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 213-248, November.
    5. Narayan, Ayushi, 2020. "Does simplifying the college financial aid process matter?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    6. Tincani, Michela M. & Kosse, Fabian & Miglino, Enrico, 2022. "The Effect of Preferential Admissions on the College Participation of Disadvantaged Students: The Role of Pre-College Choices," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 342, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    7. R. Lardeux, 2018. "Who Understands The French Income Tax? Bunching Where Tax Liabilities Start," Documents de Travail de l'Insee - INSEE Working Papers g2018-04, Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques.
    8. Robert W. Hahn & Robert D. Metcalfe, 2021. "Efficiency and Equity Impacts of Energy Subsidies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(5), pages 1658-1688, May.
    9. Keith Marzilli Ericson & Timothy J. Layton & Adrianna McIntyre & Adam Sacarny, 2023. "Reducing Administrative Barriers Increases Take-up of Subsidized Health Insurance Coverage: Evidence from a Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 30885, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Michela Maria Tincani & Fabian Kosse & Enrico Miglino, 2022. "The Effect of Preferential Admissions on the College Participation of Disadvantaged Students: The Role of Pre-College Choices," CESifo Working Paper Series 10020, CESifo.
    11. Philip Armour & Melanie A. Zaber, 2020. "Does Student Loan Forgiveness Drive Disability Application?," NBER Working Papers 26787, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Rosenqvist, Olof & Selin, Håkan, 2023. "Explaining benefit take-up behavior – the role of incentives and habits," Working Paper Series 2023:24, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    13. Boning, William C. & Guyton, John & Hodge, Ronald & Slemrod, Joel, 2020. "Heard it through the grapevine: The direct and network effects of a tax enforcement field experiment on firms," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    14. Matthew R. Denes & Sabrina T. Howell & Filippo Mezzanotti & Xinxin Wang & Ting Xu, 2020. "Investor Tax Credits and Entrepreneurship: Evidence from U.S. States," NBER Working Papers 27751, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Lucie Martin & Liam Delaney & Orla Doyle, 2022. "Everyday Administrative Burdens and Inequality," Working Papers 202202, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    16. Katherine Meckel, 2020. "Is the Cure Worse Than the Disease? Unintended Effects of Payment Reform in a Quantity-Based Transfer Program," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(6), pages 1821-1865, June.
    17. Chlond, Bettina & Goeschl, Timo & Kesternich, Martin, 2022. "More money or better procedures? Evidence from an energy efficiency assistance program," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-020, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    18. Carolyn J. Heinrich & Sayil Camacho & Sarah Clark Henderson & Mónica Hernández & Ela Joshi, 2022. "Consequences of Administrative Burden for Social Safety Nets that Support the Healthy Development of Children," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(1), pages 11-44, January.
    19. Michela Tincani & Fabian Kosse & Enrico Miglino, 2022. "The Effect of Preferential Admissions on the College Participation of Disadvantaged Students: The Role of Pre-College Choices," Working Papers 2022-034, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    20. Tomer Blumkin & Tuomas Kosonen & Kaisa Kotakorpi, 2018. "Complexity and benefit take-up: Empirical evidence from the Finnish homecare allowance," Discussion Papers 123, Aboa Centre for Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    student loans; debt forgiveness; COVID-19; Policy analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H22 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Incidence
    • H31 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents - - - Household
    • H52 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Government Expenditures and Education
    • I22 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Educational Finance; Financial Aid

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fip:fednsr:95425. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Gabriella Bucciarelli (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbnyus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.