Student loans and SAHP-ing

[telephus44]

May 14, 2012 15:08:09 GMT -5 wvugurl26 said:

We said it was wrong for Mrs C to unilaterally decide to try for a kid right now. In the same vein it is wrong for one partner to decide to be a SAHP despite the wishes of the other party. I think both should be joint decisions. And caiwau has never wavered on the fact that he doesn't want to be the sole earner in the family.

I'm not saying Mrs. C was right, just that how come it's ok for C to change his mind about having kids, presumably after he and Mrs C discussed it, got married under the plan of having kids. But it's perfectly ok for C to change his mind. However, let's say Mrs. C took out all those student loans planning to have a great career and now changes her mind about being a SAHP. It's apparently NOT ok for her to change her mind, she should have "planned" to be a SAHP and not taken the loans.

I also think the this particular couple is a bad example, but the basic idea - that if you want to be a SAHP you have to plan for that forever, you can't just change your mind - seems totally wrong given the tons of other things it's "ok" to change your mind about.

[Sum Dum Gai]

I'm not saying Mrs. C was right, just that how come it's ok for C to change his mind about having kids, presumably after he and Mrs C discussed it, got married under the plan of having kids.

Things change when you lie to your spouse and try to trick them into having kids before they're ready.

However, let's say Mrs. C took out all those student loans planning to have a great career and now changes her mind about being a SAHP.

That only matters if he can afford to raise the kids with a non working spouse while covering her student loans. Currently he can't, so it doesn't matter what she wants. They can't afford to have kids without her working.

[wvugurl26]

He didn't say he doesn't want kids. That to me would be changing his mind. They disagree on timing.

As for her changing her mind on a career it isn't a decision one partner makes. And she could maybe be a SAHP but she'd have to accept a big downward shift in her standard of living. Caiwau doesn't think she'd be happy with that. I think for a family to be successful with a SAHP, both parties need to be on board.

I do agree its a bad example. It seems like I'm only on caiwau's side but for both issues, I'd say they are joint decisions for each family to decide. What works for one may not work for another. And in both cases both parties have to be completely on board with the decision.

[quotequeen]

May 14, 2012 16:09:26 GMT -5 telephus44 said:

May 14, 2012 15:08:09 GMT -5 wvugurl26 said:

We said it was wrong for Mrs C to unilaterally decide to try for a kid right now. In the same vein it is wrong for one partner to decide to be a SAHP despite the wishes of the other party. I think both should be joint decisions. And caiwau has never wavered on the fact that he doesn't want to be the sole earner in the family.

I'm not saying Mrs. C was right, just that how come it's ok for C to change his mind about having kids, presumably after he and Mrs C discussed it, got married under the plan of having kids. But it's perfectly ok for C to change his mind. However, let's say Mrs. C took out all those student loans planning to have a great career and now changes her mind about being a SAHP. It's apparently NOT ok for her to change her mind, she should have "planned" to be a SAHP and not taken the loans.

I also think the this particular couple is a bad example, but the basic idea - that if you want to be a SAHP you have to plan for that forever, you can't just change your mind - seems totally wrong given the tons of other things it's "ok" to change your mind about.

He hasn't changed his mind about having kids. He's waffled on the timing, but the time period when he said "aw hell let's go for it" was a short time period in the middle. 98% of the time he has consistently said they needed to wait until they were in a better financial position.

And she hasn't changed her mind about being a SAHM either. She has always been the type of person to want that, and people on this board called it before they even got married.

Nonetheless, IMO, the two decisions are very different. Changing your mind about a future decision that will greatly impact your lives is one thing. Changing your mind about what you want when you've already taken actions inconsistent with that decision is another. Once you take actions that affect your family's life for a long time, some choices are foreclosed to you because you are stuck dealing with the consequences of your prior decisions. You don't get to tell the university "I changed my mind" and give your degree back and get out of paying your loans.

[Firebird]

I'm not saying Mrs. C was right, just that how come it's ok for C to change his mind about having kids, presumably after he and Mrs C discussed it, got married under the plan of having kids. But it's perfectly ok for C to change his mind.

It wouldn't be fair at all*, but I don't think that he DID change his mind about wanting kids. He just doesn't think it's prudent to have them right now, and she went behind his back so she could have them right now anyway.

*Despite it not being fair, I still come down on the side of "You shouldn't have kids you don't want, no matter what you promised or to whom." It's just too important. Kids deserve to be born to parents who are 100% sure they want them (obviously, it CAN work out when that's not the case but it sure makes things harder and less certain). It's not something to enter into lightly or because you promised.

I'm not saying I wouldn't be mad as hell if DH decided he didn't want kids after all and we were already married. I'm not saying our marriage could necessarily survive that. But, would I want him to lie to me and tell me he's still totally on board when he's not, and have our potential future children suffer? No. I'd rather he be straight with me so I can make my choice from there. I would never, ever want him to have a baby with me if he wasn't positive he still wanted it.

[Firebird]

I also think the this particular couple is a bad example, but the basic idea - that if you want to be a SAHP you have to plan for that forever, you can't just change your mind - seems totally wrong given the tons of other things it's "ok" to change your mind about.

It's not that you "can't" change your mind, it's just that you have to be realistic about the consequences of past choices and their impact on future choices.

If Mrs. C wants to be a SAHM (let's say Carl would be okay with that if it wasn't for the SL debt, just for the sake of argument), then she's got a BIG problem to solve first. She needs to figure out what to do about that debt. It doesn't just go away because she changed her mind.

Likewise, if you have always wanted kids and you had kids too young before you were ready because you wanted them so badly and decided you didn't give two figs about your career, and later you "changed your mind" and decided you wanted to have a career where you traveled around the world, you would need to deal with the fact that your younger self put childbearing ahead of your career, so now you have X children to raise and that's going to put a damper on your world-traveling career plans.

In other words, actions have consequences. Change your mind all you want, but you need to be prepared to accept the fact that your past choices limit future choices by nature. That's how choices work. And it's truer the older you get.

[Deleted]

If Mrs. C wants to be a SAHM (let's say Carl would be okay with that if it wasn't for the SL debt, just for the sake of argument), then she's got a BIG problem to solve first. She needs to figure out what to do about that debt. It doesn't just go away because she changed her mind.

I'm hesitant about these discussions because I'm a SAHM with student loans.

I think Carl knows the writing is on the wall about Mrs. C. being a SAHM. Therefore the loans need to be mostly (if not entirely paid) before they have kids, and I do mean kids plural. The loans will become even harder to pay off once a child is in the picture and I don't see Mrs. C. spacing her kids 5 years apart to modulate childcare expenses, do you?

If they do this then presumably they will have been living on Carl's income only while paying off the loans and hopefully he will have seen some income growth in the meantime, making the transition less difficult.

Without the student loans being paid off the numbers are not in their favor. I believe that Carl earns 45k a year, which translates to 3k a month. Currently Mrs. C's student loan payments are $600 a month which would leave them $2400 to live on.

[zibazinski]

I know mrs. C has been unhappy with her job for quite awhile. How many more years does she have to work before her loans are forgiven?

[Firebird]

I think Carl knows the writing is on the wall about Mrs. C. being a SAHM. Therefore the loans need to be mostly (if not entirely paid) before they have kids, and I do mean kids plural. The loans will become even harder to pay off once a child is in the picture and I don't see Mrs. C. spacing her kids 5 years apart to modulate childcare expenses, do you?

Supposedly she only wants one. But if I were married to Mrs. C, I wouldn't be able to trust her further than I could throw her at this point (sorry, Cawiau ) and I wouldn't believe for half a second that she wouldn't get pregnant with #2 soon after #1 if the alternative was returning to work.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Supposedly she only wants one. But if I were married to Mrs. C, I wouldn't be able to trust her further than I could throw her at this point (sorry, Cawiau ) and I wouldn't believe for half a second that she wouldn't get pregnant with #2 soon after #1 if the alternative was returning to work.

If they both want more than one kid, and if she's going to stay home until they're in school either way, they might as well have them close together. Get her non working period out of the way as quickly as possible.

[Wisconsin Beth]

May 15, 2012 10:59:09 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

I know mrs. C has been unhappy with her job for quite awhile. How many more years does she have to work before her loans are forgiven?

I have a vague thought it's like 6-8 years for forgiveness. But I have no idea why I think that so I could easily (and likely) be wrong.

[swasat]

May 15, 2012 10:59:09 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

I know mrs. C has been unhappy with her job for quite awhile. How many more years does she have to work before her loans are forgiven?

Quite a lot of her loans are private loans though.

[midjd]

You have to work 10 years for forgiveness - 120 monthly payments. (I asked, and no, you cannot make all 120 monthly payments at once and then apply for forgiveness )

Some wrinkles - not only do you have to work there while making all 120 qualifying payments, you also have to STILL be employed at the time 1) you apply for forgiveness; and 2) when the loans are actually forgiven. Based on the Dept of Ed's track record for timeliness, I'm guessing for most borrowers it'll be more like 11 years worked by the time the loans are forgiven.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Mid, does it have to be consecutive 120 payments or just 120 payments over the course of your career?

[wvugurl26]

I think he said $76k of federal. $27k or something to Sallie Mae and $9k to Hofstra. He said they wanted to focus on the Hofstra ones then Sallie Mae.

[midjd]

Mid, does it have to be consecutive 120 payments or just 120 payments over the course of your career?

Over the course of your career - but the maximum repayment term for federal SLs is 25 years, so you have to get in your 10 years before then (otherwise the balance is still forgiven, but you'll pay taxes on the forgiven amount - usually not good when you've been making income-based payments for 25 years).

The tax treatment really seems to be the main advantage of the 10-year forgiveness - if your income is low enough, you won't pay THAT much more over 25 years vs. 10, but with $100K+ in student loans, depending on the interest rate, you could be talking several hundred thousand in imputed income under either scenario.

[Wisconsin Beth]

May 15, 2012 15:35:15 GMT -5 midjd said:

Mid, does it have to be consecutive 120 payments or just 120 payments over the course of your career?

Over the course of your career - but the maximum repayment term for federal SLs is 25 years, so you have to get in your 10 years before then (otherwise the balance is still forgiven, but you'll pay taxes on the forgiven amount - usually not good when you've been making income-based payments for 25 years).

The tax treatment really seems to be the main advantage of the 10-year forgiveness - if your income is low enough, you won't pay THAT much more over 25 years vs. 10, but with $100K+ in student loans, depending on the interest rate, you could be talking several hundred thousand in imputed income under either scenario.

I was thinking if you work for 2 years, take 3 years off to SAHP and then go back to work, how did that work.

[Sum Dum Gai]

I was thinking if you work for 2 years, take 3 years off to SAHP and then go back to work, how did that work.

Danger Will Robinson!!! You're assuming that the SAHP has no issue finding a job that qualifies for debt forgiveness after their 3 year break from the labor force. If the loans are in forbearance, or on IBR, during their time out of the labor force the balance due will be larger when they're looking to re-enter the labor force than it was when they left. If they have trouble finding a job, fairly common after a period out of the labor force, they could be in for a world of hurt.

ETA - Especially with the current student loan bubble, or bubble like thing. I could easily see those slots that qualify for loan forgiveness being highly sought after in five years.

[midjd]

This is why I'm hanging onto my job with all I've got!

I've told DH that if I find myself job-less with 7 or 8 years into the repayment plan, I'll get any state job I can - no matter the pay - to finish out my 2 years. The IBR plan does some scary, scary things to your loan balance when your monthly payments don't even cover 1/2 the interest charges...

(The definition of "public service" is pretty generous - basically any state/government employer qualifies).

[Wisconsin Beth]

Interesting. Thanks Dark and Mid.

[thyme4change]

So, my kids have never had a SAHP - but, my husband went back to school and he still had student loans. I think we delayed them, but I suspect they still accrued interest - which was probably 3%. Granted, he didn't have large loans, but, I know he felt a lot of responsibility to not fritter away any money while he was in school. We could have afforded him to do more, but he had the guilt that he wasn't bringing anything in. I didn't feel that way. He drove a total piece of shit car. I offered to upgrade him, but he said he was okay. I remember a friend making fun of him/his car. I said "I gotta hand it to him, he has sucked it up while he has been in school, and really saved us a lot of money." Now, nearly 10 years later, I know that guy is continually complaining about how he has such significant student loans that he can't afford better stuff. Duh!

So, my story isn't helpful at all. But, I wonder if this could be a valuable lesson to girls in college. If they want to grow up and be able to take time off to raise their kids, maybe they need to keep their spending under check during college. They might not realize that loans might push off their baby-making days by a cool decade.

[ontrack]

May 15, 2012 14:49:11 GMT -5 midjd said:

Some wrinkles - not only do you have to work there while making all 120 qualifying payments, you also have to STILL be employed at the time 1) you apply for forgiveness; and 2) when the loans are actually forgiven. Based on the Dept of Ed's track record for timeliness, I'm guessing for most borrowers it'll be more like 11 years worked by the time the loans are forgiven.

Get those employment verification forms in quickly Mid, FedLoans has been so much nicer to deal with ;D

[zibazinski]

Nah, all you have to do is find someone to pay them off for you while you stay home.

[thyme4change]

I guess the real message is that if you are hot, you can convince your husband to pay 'em. And, he will probably be rich, too - given that you are a trophy wife. If, however, you are a dog, you might want to try and limit your loan amounts.

[Sum Dum Gai]

I guess the real message is that if you are hot, you can convince your husband to pay 'em. And, he will probably be rich, too - given that you are a trophy wife.

I don't know, to be honest hot women seem to be more numerous than rich dudes. Plus you see the occasional rich guy that like keeps his old homely looking wife, instead of getting the upgraded model, so there's even less opportunities for all the young hotties. Good thing there's always stripping.

[Deleted]

- about 3/4 of her loans are federal loans (76k)

- the goal is to have both the Sallie Mae an Hofstra loan paid off within the next 5 years or so (32-34k)

- my wife just applied for a job within the department of health that is paying 34k. So that would be a 10k pay cut if she gets it but in the long run (loan forgiveness) it is totally worth it.

[Firebird]

cawiau, how are things going with the missus? Are you guys in counseling? Do you think it will work out?

[Deleted]

May 15, 2012 16:42:42 GMT -5 Firebird said:

cawiau, how are things going with the missus? Are you guys in counseling? Do you think it will work out?

We are on speaking terms. Hard to do counseling now when we live in two different towns and as for working things out, only time will tell.

I am over being mad, now it is more of a question of can I give her what she wants. Not the SAHP thing, for me that is non-negotiable but the timeline to have a kid: her willing to hold on or me willing to move forward.

[Firebird]

Is she still willing to go back to work after the baby, and do you feel you can trust her to do that?

I'm glad you guys are back on speaking terms. I really hope it works between you two; you're obviously very much in love.

[zibazinski]

Or very afraid of divorce.