IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/edfpol/v19y2024i4p716-733.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Jacob Goss

    (Department of Economics University of Wisconsin Madison, WI 53706)

  • Daniel Mangrum

    (Research and Statistics Group Federal Reserve Bank of New York New York, NY 10045)

  • Joelle Scally

    (Research and Statistics Group Federal Reserve Bank of New York New York, NY 10045)

Abstract

We quantify the total stock of balances eligible for the Biden administration's 2022 student loan forgiveness proposal and examine which groups would have benefited most. Up to $442 billion in loans were eligible. Those who would have benefited most were younger, had lower credit scores, and lived in lower- and middle-income neighborhoods. We also find that Black and Hispanic borrowers would have disproportionately benefited from the proposal. We then compare the distribution of beneficiaries for the proposed 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 proposal would have reduced the cost by nearly $100 billion and made the policy more progressive. Compared with 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 with a discussion of how each policy lever affects the progressivity of loan cancellation to help inform future policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacob Goss & Daniel Mangrum & Joelle Scally, 2024. "Assessing the Relative Progressivity of the Biden Administration's Federal Student Loan Forgiveness Proposal," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 19(4), pages 716-733, Fall.
  • Handle: RePEc:tpr:edfpol:v:19:y:2024:i:4:p:716-733
    DOI: 10.1162/edfp_a_00429
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00429
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1162/edfp_a_00429?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:tpr:edfpol:v:19:y:2024:i:4:p:716-733. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: The MIT Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    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.