Student Debt Burdened Them, So They Moved Abroad and Stopped Paying (nytimes.com)

by JumpCrisscross 105 comments 56 points
Read article View on HN

105 comments

[−] retired 41d ago
People in The Netherlands have done this. They go to S/E Asian countries to skip out on a €30,000 debt. After a while your passport becomes invalid which makes travel very difficult. And with the outstanding debt you are not able to get a new passport.

Which is dumb, because you only have to pay off the debt if you are able to, interest rate is very low, you can pause it for a few years and after 35 years the loan is automatically forgiven. It's not a big deal. Completely uprooting your life to skip out on a €50/month payment is insanity but people see that €30,000 number in their portal and freak out about it.

Approximately 25,000 emigrated debtors are currently untraceable by the student debt collector.

[−] JohnTHaller 41d ago
In the US, student loan interest rates and average amount of debt are generally much higher than other countries. And you your student debt is designed to be permanent so that even declaring bankruptcy doesn't discharge it.
[−] Jensson 40d ago
Its essentially just a tax you pay for using higher education. You pay that in other countries as well via your taxes. Your tax debt is also permanent so you can't get out of paying taxes just by declaring bankruptcy.

It is a bit weird that they let universities levy indirect taxes but its not really bad. Imagine if instead of property tax you have government property loans and the interest of those loans was instead of property tax, I think that wouldn't be a bad system.

[−] throwuttfj 41d ago

> Passport Blocks: Arrears exceeding €5,000 can result in registration in the passport alert system, making it impossible to receive a new passport,

I would say that is pretty serious violation of human rights, for relatively small infraction. Soviet countries used similar system to prevent people from leaving their communist paradise.

How are you supposed to pay your debt, if you are not allowed to find new job abroad?!

[−] mothballed 41d ago
US does same for very small child support debts (I think around $1000) as well as larger tax bills. Of course when I cross to/from Mexico by land at small crossing I've noticed most have no passport and just beg for forgiveness which usually works.
[−] harambae 39d ago

> I've noticed most have no passport and just beg for forgiveness which usually works

in which direction? headed south or back north?

[−] mothballed 39d ago
South almost never checks anything whatsoever so it's a moot point there unless you're crossing in a major city like Tijuana. On many occasions even the guy at the metal detector has been sleeping. (Also note: Mexico never changed law like US, in Mexico it's still legal to enter with only a birth certificate and ID)

Going North into america I'd say the majority don't have passports and they are let through anyway. I actually have a legal US passport and I watched myself detained, jailed, and interrogated while everyone without a passport was let through with a birth certificate and state driver's license (this is modern times, not the days when that was all you needed). So maybe it is worse to have a passport as it's suspicious as most people at the lesser land crossings do not.

[−] JumpCrisscross 41d ago

>

that is pretty serious violation of human rights

I don’t think it’s that hyperbolic. But I agree that the existence of debts shouldn’t invalidate one’s right to a passport.

(The counter argument is that passports are a privilege and citizenship a bundle of privileges and duties. Why should the country have the burden of passporting someone abroad who as abandoned it.)

[−] Paracompact 41d ago
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...

"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."

Passports shouldn't be a privilege, and violation of the universal declaration of human rights is pretty serious.

[−] JumpCrisscross 40d ago

>

violation of the universal declaration of human rights is pretty serious

No, it isn’t. It isn’t even legally binding. (And obviously couldn’t be. It would invalidate incarceration and conscription, for example.)

[−] Jensson 40d ago
People don't have that right when they are criminals, prisoners don't get to leave their country etc and this is essentially that.
[−] throwuttfj 41d ago
Education is also a privilege. And universities should have no power to block people from leaving a country. It is like Emirates preventing people to go home, because of unpaid speeding tickets. Or Qatar confiscating passports of Indian workers.
[−] JumpCrisscross 41d ago

>

universities should have no power to block people from leaving a country

They don’t.

[−] throwuttfj 41d ago
They do, state owned education
[−] retired 41d ago
They only do this if communication with the debtor is impossible. If this happens to you, you can contact the government, schedule a payment plan for your debt and then they give you a passport with a 12 to 24 month validity.
[−] throwuttfj 41d ago
No, they also do that, if you have no money to pay.
[−] JumpCrisscross 41d ago

>

They block your passport because they can't reach you

Wouldn’t one applying for a passport involve the government and person connecting on some level?

[−] retired 41d ago
My best guess is that the embassy in the foreign country gets a red flag when you try to renew your passport and you then have to contact the government debt collector. Different branches of government.
[−] post-it 41d ago
The Dutch embassy will be happy to get you home, where you can find a job.
[−] throwuttfj 41d ago
Right, for tiny fee of 6000 euro return ticket, and 2000 euro monthly rent. Great plan to save money and pay debt!
[−] flowerthoughts 41d ago
Speaking of plans... If you haven't made bank already when the passport expires, perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to move abroad after all.
[−] post-it 41d ago
There's only so much handholding a government is going to do. Don't let your passport expire while abroad and ineligible for renewal.
[−] lynngr80 41d ago
I mean, my monthly student loan payments in the US for a degree in healthcare is $1300 USD per month. It comes out to about 40% of each paycheck. That’s a significant amount. I’d honestly consider moving abroad to avoid paying it. It’s debilitating and I can barely survive while making payments.
[−] retired 41d ago
Wow. For The Netherlands it is 4% of your income, but only the part of your income above minimum wage. If you earn €40k, minimum wage is €26k then you pay 4% over €13k = €520 per year = €43 per month.

The average medical student is around €50,000 to €60,000 in debt.

[−] mysterydip 40d ago
€50,000 / €43 / 12 is more than 96 years. Is anyone expected to pay their loans off, or in other words how much debt is forgiven each year?
[−] morgoo 40d ago
I'd assume that medical graduates are earning a lot more than €40k
[−] standardUser 41d ago
In the US, student loan interest rates tend to be close to market (which I find despicable) and there is no automatic forgiveness. In fact, student loan debt has extra rules in the US making it difficult to get discharged in bankruptcy, so even that route doesn't work for a lot of people.
[−] ceejayoz 41d ago
Yeah, I find this deeply frustrating. Interest rates are supposed to reflect the level of risk, and student loans are deeply low-risk to the lender.
[−] phil21 41d ago
Risk is only one component. Opportunity cost and the time value of money is another.

Risk premium is on top of the other bits.

[−] JumpCrisscross 41d ago

>

student loans are deeply low-risk to the lender

Based on the other comment, they absolutely reflect that.

[−] ceejayoz 41d ago
I don't think the other comment is accurate.

edit: Yeah, that other comment is talking about European rates, not American rates.

https://studentaid.gov/understand-aid/types/loans/interest-r...

6.39% to 8.94%, and that's for Federal. Private ones tend to be even higher.

  7/1/21–6/30/22  3.73%
  7/1/20–6/30/21  2.75%
  7/1/19–6/30/20  4.53%
  7/1/18–6/30/19  5.05%
  7/1/17–6/30/18  4.45%
  7/1/16–6/30/17  3.76%
[−] JumpCrisscross 41d ago
Hmm. I wonder why it doesn’t make sense to launch a private lender that offers lower rates.
[−] ceejayoz 41d ago
The Fed rate is too high for the low risk involved.

Private student loans are similarly protected from bankrupcty, and don't have things like income-based repayment; they are, if anything, safer for the lender. https://studentaid.gov/understand-aid/types/loans/federal-vs...

[−] JumpCrisscross 41d ago
Sure. I’m saying why couldn’t you and I start C & J Lenders Inc. and undercut those guys. Say, 5% for a 20-year loan [1].

[1] https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/...

[−] ceejayoz 41d ago
Same reason I can't easily start an AT&T/Verizon competitor.

Doesn't mean their pricing is that reasonable, or that funding education should be run this way in the first place. It just means there are big barriers to entry, often established by the existing players to protect their margins. The Fed rate for student loans should be lower.

[−] JumpCrisscross 41d ago

>

there are big barriers to entry

What are the barriers? Can I make non-dischargeable student loans at 5%?

[−] retired 41d ago
Had to look it up, it is 2.3% for 2026 which is a bit below the Euribor 1 year rate. Between 2017 and 2022 it was 0%.

Loan forgiveness happens after 35 years so for most academics that is about 10 years before retirement. Forgiveness also happens upon death.

Bankruptcy is a bit different here. We have a program where someone manages your finances for about three years, and after that most remaining debt is forgiven. However, student debt is an exception, that one stays

[−] musicale 41d ago

> Forgiveness also happens upon death.

Comforting I'm sure. But it wasn't always that way:

"Six years after the death of Christopher Bryski, a 23-year-old student at Rutgers University, Key Bank has agreed to forgive his student loan. But Bryski's family is not stopping there: It's now fighting to change the laws in the hope of sparing others the trauma it endured as lenders continued to hound it for payment on its dead son's debts."

And it might not be mandatory:

"But it is guidance, not law, and it does not cover creditors collecting their own debts, as they are not covered by the FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act)," she said.

https://abcnews.com/Business/bank-forgives-dead-students-loa...

[−] reenorap 41d ago
Paying your debts is a business decision, not a moral decision. There is nothing moral about paying your debt to a bank and nothing immoral about not paying your debt to a bank.

Businesses do this ALL THE TIME. Businesses can do this, and will walk away from debt the second when the math makes sense. If it's okay for businesses, then the exact same behavior should be okay for us humans to do. I walked away from my house at the height of the financial crisis. It was a business decision, because the mortgage was far larger than the value of my house.

Student loans are the only reason why tuition has gone up 10x in 30 years. Every financial entity from banks to schools feel like it's okay to hang students out to dry with large debts because they will have to pay for it for the rest of their lives. I hope a large portion of the debt disappears because the students simply walk away from the US.

[−] binarynate 41d ago
In my opinion, if you agree to a deal and then decide not to fulfill your end of the deal, that is immoral. Like if you agree to pay me to make you a sandwich and then you take the sandwich but leave without paying, that is immoral.
[−] hamdingers 41d ago
In my opinion, if you make a $50,000+ bet on an 18 year old's future career, whether or not that bet works out for you is entirely your problem.

Investments don't always work out, tough luck. That's obviously not the same as buying a sandwich.

[−] binarynate 41d ago
My comment was specifically about the question of morality, not about whether it's a wise business decision.
[−] readthenotes1 41d ago
I think you both are a little bit right.

If you are in a casual agreement with a friend and don't keep up your end then it's immoral.

If you have a contract that specifies expectations and consequences, then it's just a business deal.

The (predatory) school loan business works from contracts and they are obligated to keep up their side only as much as you are yours.

The real immorality is not accepting the consequences embedded in the contract to which you both agree to, it is that the United States has such a business in the first place.

Well actually second place I guess. When the student loan business started it was not predatory. But it got horribly abused, by the borrowers who would declare bankruptcy gaming that system, schools who raised rates because they knew loans were available, and the lenders who astroTurfed children into believing that it was a good bargain to exchange $200,000 at high interest for a Art History degree

[−] Jensson 40d ago
Its not immoral to not be able to pay your debts, but its immoral to not pay them when you are able to.
[−] dttze 40d ago
[dead]
[−] Teever 41d ago
“To steal from a brother or sister is evil. To not steal from the institutions that are the pillars of the Pig Empire is equally immoral.”

― Abbie Hoffman

[−] Jensson 40d ago
That is how bad countries are made. Good countries are made by people thinking that its also wrong to steal from the government.

For example you should never ever vote on politicians that waste tax money. Some countries do that, but USA is not one of them since Americans thinks its moral to steal from the government so they don't blink an eye over every president using millions on his own or his wifes personal projects. "I'd also do that if I was the president" is how that gets perpetuated, you have to stop voting for any such candidate and only vote for those that promises to put an end to it. That would mean voting third party, but...

[−] Teever 40d ago
Disagree.

Bad countries are made when people let other people break the rules with impunity.

If the legal system fails to stop bad people from breaking rules it's up to us to stop them.

And we can't outright use force like the state can, so that means using subtle means of degrading their ability to break the rules.

[−] docdeek 41d ago

> Ms. Tully was on an income-based repayment plan, which allows many borrowers to have their remaining debt forgiven after 20 years of making qualifying payments. She was paying $60 per month when she defaulted. This amount, to many, may seem manageable. But for her, it remained psychologically burdensome.

$60 a month for 20 years, and then the debt is forgiven doesn’t sound burdensome at all. Perhaps if she doesn’t return to the US it won’t matter, but it seems a small price to pay monthly to make returning to your home one day a whole lot less stressful.

[−] hamdingers 41d ago
The psychological burden comes from the endless harassment and attempted scamming from the lenders. They don't just accept your IDR and let you quietly pay $60/mo forever. It's 20 years of endless threatening calls, "urgent notices," surprise debits that must be fought. They'll delay or outright "lose" your annual recertification paperwork every year, reverting you to to some outrageously high "default" plan.

Plus the threat that a hostile administration might come in and change who qualifies for IDR at any point, which just happened and is causing a massive spike in defaults.

[−] JumpCrisscross 41d ago
I genuinely couldn’t figure out why the article highlighted her. If it were any other publication, I’d suspect rage baiting. But maybe HN sees something I didn’t.
[−] slibhb 41d ago
The NYT had a rough patch a while back but it's incredibly good nowadays. They absolutely didn't have to include the details here (like $60/month) but did because they care about the truth.
[−] readthenotes1 41d ago
I can't tell if this is sarcasm about the newspaper that just worried yesterday about the North American Treaty Organization.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15705545/New-York-T...

[−] declan_roberts 41d ago
The most frustrating part of the student loan question is that you can still GET THESE LOANS! The schools will sell you into indentured servitude today! They'll take the money and don't care at all! They take ZERO responsibility for the student loan crisis.
[−] propter_hoc 41d ago
I'm Canadian, but I know someone from the US who did this. She's living in Paris, moderately successful in academia and as far as I can tell, completely happy to never return to the US. Her family goes to visit her in Europe once in a while.

Perplexing.

[−] Simulacra 41d ago
"Ms. Tully was on an income-based repayment plan, which allows many borrowers to have their remaining debt forgiven after 20 years of making qualifying payments. She was paying $60 per month when she defaulted. This amount, to many, may seem manageable. But for her, it remained psychologically burdensome."

Say what? $60 per month is not that much!

[−] eudamoniac 41d ago
At this point I'm of the opinion that taking out burdensome loans for all but a handful of high earning degrees is a negative signal of intelligence, regardless of how you did in the classes. The concept of a loan, interest rates, and expected ROI is not beyond the grasp of an eighteen year old adult.
[−] petcat 41d ago
She's from Colorado and decided to go to an out of state university (Oregon) and pay full out of state tuition for a degree in "historic preservation"?

Yeah no shit you just signed up for a lifetime of debt.

Reminds me of another story of some lady that got saddled with a couple hundred thousand in debt because she really wanted to go to Duke for a theater management degree. And then fled with her Russian fiance to Moscow so she wouldn't have to pay it.

We all agree that higher education is too expensive in the US. But these are not good examples of that.

[−] opengrass 41d ago
No need to leave, use the Sam Hyde method. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD2gXY4piF4
[−] jazz9k 41d ago
Who wouldn't want to rack up a bunch of debt and just not pay when the bill came due?
[−] _m_p 41d ago
Make universities pay for this.
[−] yabutlivnWoods 41d ago
Debt is a social construct that the dying olds keep ramming down the next generations throats.

It's ageism and exploitation of youth.

The ledger is never getting paid off because it doesn't exist as anything more than allegory.

We can pay it off with allegory too if we must walk through such incantations for the semantics police.

What a joke of a culture to validate the ramblings of Abe Simpson.

Good in these students. Live anywhere else until America becomes less of a shit hole country. Even if that means dying never stepping foot in the US again.

[−] Mezzie 41d ago
I'm considering doing this.

I'm eligible for dual citizenship and am in the process of acquiring my second citizenship.

My reasons are two-fold:

1.) I've fallen through the cracks and ended up in a situation the system did not account for. I had a medical incident during my last semester of graduate school that turned out to be a presenting relapse of Multiple Sclerosis. Obviously I couldn't have anticipated this when I went to undergraduate and graduate school. The problem comes in in that the system treats disability as completely binary: Either you can't work at all/can work so little you can't earn more than 1600/mo, or they assume you're fine and can pay everything off. I can work, but I can't work in the field or to the level that I planned for before I got ill. In addition, I have expenses working full time that an able bodied person doesn't just to allow me to do that full time work and that aren't considered in the income based payment calculations. So I fall in the hole of 'make too much to be considered disabled, but not enough to actually pay' due to a condition that is incurable. Also, I have a special Medicaid exemption that allows me to earn more without losing healthcare, but not enough to actually pay back my loans. So even if I could get and maintain a job that would pay a salary that would let me pay, I'd then lose my healthcare and I'd hit the out of pocket maximum every year on any private plan, resulting in a substantial decrease in actual salary.

There's functionally no way for me to pay my loans: If I give up the supports I pay for to pay my loans, I can't work full time anymore and can't pay my loans. the jobs that would pay over 100k in this state (what I would need at minimum to cover supports, healthcare I'd lose, and loan payments) won't hire someone who needs frequent time off, a bunch of employment flexibility, who can't work overtime, and can't be subjected to too much stress. I can barely work one full time job, so additional jobs or hustling isn't an option. I'm just stuck.

2.) I don't consider the US government to be a trustworthy contract partner at this point. I was one of the people who consolidated my loans to take advantage of the SAVE program under Biden's administration. They've struck down SAVE, but haven't done a thing for those of us who consolidated our loans and added to the principal because we trusted what we were told by the government. If I can be told by the government that doing something will help me, and then 2 years later they reverse that with no recourse offered, that tells me none of the terms can be depended on. If our own government's answer to this is 'you shouldn't have listened to the government, sucker', then well... I don't trust them to fulfill their end of the contract, and I don't particularly like the idea of owing money to an institution with both an extreme amount of power over my life and no intent on sticking to agreements or dealing fairly with me. It makes me nervous, especially for 10-20 years down the road.